Theory Wiki - User contributions [en]

Educational Game Design and its attributes that affect learning

2009-05-19T11:03:29Z

Clare.xie: /* Educational game design practice */

Educational games, as a well-accepted effective method in education and training has been discussed a lot in the realm of games and learning in general, but little is known about what components of these games (i.e., game attributes) influence learning outcomes. Researcher in pedagogy has taken much effort in developing and analyzing workable metal models which can help people learn, however, they are not the real practitioner of game design which limits their knowing of the design context as well as conveying the knowledge to the design process. On the other hand, the primary problem that game designers encounter is that they have little theory on which to base the efforts. There are little definitions and frameworks indicating what a game is, or why people play games, or what makes a game great. Game designers are seeking to establish their principles of aesthetics, a framework for criticism, and a model for solidifying the value and contribution in specific field, such as education.

==Overview==
The early stage research on computer games as a platform for studying on intrinsic motivation was carried out by Malone’s work from the late 1970s. It was not standing on the education ground, but still provided good land to root the later investigation of game design attributes for educational purpose. Three categories of individual motivations are brought up based on motivation theory to look into computer game’s effect on learning: challenge, fantasy and curiosity (Habgoods et al. 2005).
# Challenge: a call to engage in a fight, competition and problem solving situation. In game design, multi-level of change will be provided to suit users with different level of proficiency in different level engagement.
# Fantasy: an environment that evokes mental images in people’s mind of physical/social situations that not actually present (Malone & Lepper ch. 11, 1987), which highly relates to their own desire, thought or knowledge.
# Curiosity: a natural desire to learn or know more

==Relationships between learning outcome and the game as educational tool==
(Wilson et al, Gee, J. P. 2004, Prensky,M. 2001)

1. Conflict: conflict presented within a game is positively related to cognitive learning (Wilson et al./Game Attributes and Learning) in problem solving, strategy making, performance evaluation and prediction: explore to understand the situation, find the existing strategy, adaption and try to make new strategy for solving the problem, meanwhile the solving of the conflict help increase people’s motivation and engaging people in next stage of gaming.

2. Challenge: Proper level of challenge feature stimulate people’s knowledge retrieval and keep them stay in flow in natural way. Too much or too little challenge will lead to decrease of the motivation. Also it would affect people’s perception of learning content integrated in the game, which will accordingly decrease their attitudinal value of the content.

3. Adaptation: properly increasing the adaptation features in games help people developing the cognitive strategy making, and too much or too little will hurts people’s motivation and comfort level in playing

4. Fantasy: fantasy help to engage people and stay in flow in a more persistent way, which may affect skill-based outcome and knowledge acquiring; however there is no study results directly pointing out what kind of fantasy would help in the cognitive process leading to skill-based outcome increase. Endogenous fantasy is regarded as better player in engaging people while exogenous fantasy has purer learning content with less integration of animation.

5. Rule/goal setting: specific goals tied to a task are not only for the purpose of leading people to reach an ideal state, but creates a working space which allow people explore, manipulate and try out different resources and strategies in a controllable way. It increases people’s motivation and serve as a connecting point for people to be back to the game.

6. Mystery: a gap of knowledge, which creates a tension between “known” and “un-known”. It activates people’s curiosity directly.

7. Feedback and hint: the specificity and immediacy of the feedback are important in engaging people in the flow of game play, also help them develop proper strategy for winning or problem solving. Feedback and hint is a great point for integrating learning content with the media.

==Game design attributes that impact on learning==
• Animation: key components for building up fantasy

• Character sheet: a map of main character and their functions/features presenting in the game, which constructs the virtual world of game and give hint to people about the possible mechanism workable inside of the game. People get to know a new world from knowing “who are the people” and “how do they work and live” in this world, which provides a starting point for adaption.

• Real-world simulating content: match people’s value, experience, knowledge and emotion with realistic living in some level, which grounds for “challenge” “mystery” and “fantasy” controlling.

• Story: including background setting, scene setting and specific tasks towards a final goal. It works as a line that leads people go though the game play, connect every segment of game design together; character, scene, challenge level, and performance evaluation.

==Educational game design practice==
'''Several issues to focus on for employing game design in educational practice overall:'''
# Complex concept understanding;
# Boring repeated skill practice;
# considerable time investment;
# negative affect experienced in the process

'''Three keys to integrating educational content into computer games:'''
# matching specific educational topics or concepts to their most appropriate medium;
# placing educational content at the hart of game play, so that children engage in the targeted real-world behavior or thinking as they play the game,
# design feedback and hint structures in ways that support and scaffold children into difficult content. (Fisch,2005)

'''Case study I:''' Game design for teaching programming on intro-level

in Eagle&Barnes’ paper about educational game evaluation for learning in introductory computing, it designed experiment that compare computer games with traditional programming assignment in basic concept acquiring, which shows that games can help prepare students to create deeper, more robust understanding of computing concepts (arrays and nested loops) while improving their perceptions of computing homework. Comparing to a traditional programming assignment, game is more effective in complex concept learning, and students FEEL more efficient and more gainful in learning and express positive emotion.

'''Case study II:''' Educational game for music education.

In Denis& Jouvelot’s case study, game is designed as a instrument for playing music to spur the player’s curiosity and creativity by enabling them to easily play music, which is an approach that try to overcome the motivational lapses due to the instrumental limitations leading to resignation and surrender.[] There were several barriers discussed in terms of traditional music education that block people from enjoying and continuing in music learning: 1. considerable time and effort investment in learning music theory and instrumental technique;2. Unpleasant emotions and pressure experienced when playing music publicly and exposed in evaluation. In traditional music education process, the boring and tough practice of basic instrumental technique and the memorizing of music theory harm people’s intrinsic motivation, which come from curiosity, desire of expressing and love of music. Only the students with really strong intension or under restrict regulation from outward force, such as parents and teacher, can go through the process successfully. Here, edutainment as a concept of “making learning fun”- make game for music students to 1. turn the boring learning process of some basic concept and theory into a fun way--learning by playing 2. slow down the learning curve by using metaphors, and 3.free their creative music expression from pre-requisite of instrument technique practice.

==Related methods or framework to guide game design==
Mayer’s Multidemedia Deisgn Principles (2001) and Howard Gardner’s 8 multiple intelligences for children’s learning (McCue,2005)

[[Image:Myer_multimedia design principle.jpg]]
[[Image:8intelligence.jpg]]

==Reference==
#Gee, J. P. (2004). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave
#MacMillan. Chap. 3 & 5.
#Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Game-Based Learning. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House. Section “Putting the game and learning together” (pp. 164-173).
#Habgood, M. P. J., Ainsworth, S. E., & Benford, S. (2005). Endogenous fantasy and learning in digital games. Simulation and Gaming, 36(4), 1-16.
#K. A. Wilson, W. L. Bedwell, E. H. Lazzara, E. Salas, C. S. Burke, J. L. Estock, K. L. Orvis, and C. Conkey.( 2009).Relationships Between Game Attributes and Learning Outcomes: Review and Research Proposals Simulation Gaming, 40(2): 217 - 266.
#Baker, R.S.J.d., Habgood, M.P.J., Ainsworth, S.E., Corbett, A.T. (2007) Modeling the Acquisition of Fluent Skill in Educational Action Games. Proceedings of User Modeling 2007, 17-26.
#Squire, K., & Barab, S. (2004). Replaying history: engaging urban underserved students in learning world history through computer simulation games. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Learning sciences (pp. 505-512).Santa Monica, CA: #International Society of the Learning Sciences
#William D. Russell, Mark Newton.Short-Term Psychological Effects of Interactive Video Game Technology: Exercise on Mood and Attention
#Kelleher, C. Alice: Using 3D Gaming Technology to Draw Students into Computer Science. 2006 Game Design and Technology Workshop and Conference, pages 16-20
#Michael Eagle, Tiffany Barnes. (2009). Experimental evaluation of an educational game for improved learning in introductory computing. Proceedings of the 40th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education.
#Shalom M. Fisch. (2005).Making educational computer games "educational".Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Interactiondesign and children.
#Guillaume Denis, Pierre Jouvelot.(2005).Motivation-driven educational game design: applying best practices to music education. Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGCHI International Conference on Advances in computer entertainment technology.
#Patrick McCue.(2005).The crucial role of animated children's educational games. ACM SIGGRAPH 2005 Educators program.

Educational Game Design and its attributes that affect learning

2009-05-19T11:02:34Z

Clare.xie:

Educational games, as a well-accepted effective method in education and training has been discussed a lot in the realm of games and learning in general, but little is known about what components of these games (i.e., game attributes) influence learning outcomes. Researcher in pedagogy has taken much effort in developing and analyzing workable metal models which can help people learn, however, they are not the real practitioner of game design which limits their knowing of the design context as well as conveying the knowledge to the design process. On the other hand, the primary problem that game designers encounter is that they have little theory on which to base the efforts. There are little definitions and frameworks indicating what a game is, or why people play games, or what makes a game great. Game designers are seeking to establish their principles of aesthetics, a framework for criticism, and a model for solidifying the value and contribution in specific field, such as education.

==Overview==
The early stage research on computer games as a platform for studying on intrinsic motivation was carried out by Malone’s work from the late 1970s. It was not standing on the education ground, but still provided good land to root the later investigation of game design attributes for educational purpose. Three categories of individual motivations are brought up based on motivation theory to look into computer game’s effect on learning: challenge, fantasy and curiosity (Habgoods et al. 2005).
# Challenge: a call to engage in a fight, competition and problem solving situation. In game design, multi-level of change will be provided to suit users with different level of proficiency in different level engagement.
# Fantasy: an environment that evokes mental images in people’s mind of physical/social situations that not actually present (Malone & Lepper ch. 11, 1987), which highly relates to their own desire, thought or knowledge.
# Curiosity: a natural desire to learn or know more

==Relationships between learning outcome and the game as educational tool==
(Wilson et al, Gee, J. P. 2004, Prensky,M. 2001)

1. Conflict: conflict presented within a game is positively related to cognitive learning (Wilson et al./Game Attributes and Learning) in problem solving, strategy making, performance evaluation and prediction: explore to understand the situation, find the existing strategy, adaption and try to make new strategy for solving the problem, meanwhile the solving of the conflict help increase people’s motivation and engaging people in next stage of gaming.

2. Challenge: Proper level of challenge feature stimulate people’s knowledge retrieval and keep them stay in flow in natural way. Too much or too little challenge will lead to decrease of the motivation. Also it would affect people’s perception of learning content integrated in the game, which will accordingly decrease their attitudinal value of the content.

3. Adaptation: properly increasing the adaptation features in games help people developing the cognitive strategy making, and too much or too little will hurts people’s motivation and comfort level in playing

4. Fantasy: fantasy help to engage people and stay in flow in a more persistent way, which may affect skill-based outcome and knowledge acquiring; however there is no study results directly pointing out what kind of fantasy would help in the cognitive process leading to skill-based outcome increase. Endogenous fantasy is regarded as better player in engaging people while exogenous fantasy has purer learning content with less integration of animation.

5. Rule/goal setting: specific goals tied to a task are not only for the purpose of leading people to reach an ideal state, but creates a working space which allow people explore, manipulate and try out different resources and strategies in a controllable way. It increases people’s motivation and serve as a connecting point for people to be back to the game.

6. Mystery: a gap of knowledge, which creates a tension between “known” and “un-known”. It activates people’s curiosity directly.

7. Feedback and hint: the specificity and immediacy of the feedback are important in engaging people in the flow of game play, also help them develop proper strategy for winning or problem solving. Feedback and hint is a great point for integrating learning content with the media.

==Game design attributes that impact on learning==
• Animation: key components for building up fantasy

• Character sheet: a map of main character and their functions/features presenting in the game, which constructs the virtual world of game and give hint to people about the possible mechanism workable inside of the game. People get to know a new world from knowing “who are the people” and “how do they work and live” in this world, which provides a starting point for adaption.

• Real-world simulating content: match people’s value, experience, knowledge and emotion with realistic living in some level, which grounds for “challenge” “mystery” and “fantasy” controlling.

• Story: including background setting, scene setting and specific tasks towards a final goal. It works as a line that leads people go though the game play, connect every segment of game design together; character, scene, challenge level, and performance evaluation.

==Educational game design practice==
'''Several issues to focus on for employing game design in educational practice overall:'''
# Complex concept understanding;
# Boring repeated skill practice;
# considerable time investment;
# negative affect experienced in the process

'''Three keys to integrating educational content into computer games:'''
# matching specific educational topics or concepts to their most appropriate medium;
# placing educational content at the hart of game play, so that children engage in the targeted real-world behavior or thinking as they play the game,
# design feedback and hint structures in ways that support and scaffold children into difficult content. (Fisch,2005)

'''Case study I:''' Game design for teaching programming in intro-level

in Eagle&Barnes’ paper about educational game evaluation for learning in introductory computing, it designed experiment that compare computer games with traditional programming assignment in basic concept acquiring, which shows that games can help prepare students to create deeper, more robust understanding of computing concepts (arrays and nested loops) while improving their perceptions of computing homework. Comparing to a traditional programming assignment, game is more effective in complex concept learning, and students FEEL more efficient and more gainful in learning and express positive emotion.

'''Case study II:''' Educational game for music education.

In Denis& Jouvelot’s case study, game is designed as a instrument for playing music to spur the player’s curiosity and creativity by enabling them to easily play music, which is an approach that try to overcome the motivational lapses due to the instrumental limitations leading to resignation and surrender.[] There were several barriers discussed in terms of traditional music education that block people from enjoying and continuing in music learning: 1. considerable time and effort investment in learning music theory and instrumental technique;2. Unpleasant emotions and pressure experienced when playing music publicly and exposed in evaluation. In traditional music education process, the boring and tough practice of basic instrumental technique and the memorizing of music theory harm people’s intrinsic motivation, which come from curiosity, desire of expressing and love of music. Only the students with really strong intension or under restrict regulation from outward force, such as parents and teacher, can go through the process successfully. Here, edutainment as a concept of “making learning fun”- make game for music students to 1. turn the boring learning process of some basic concept and theory into a fun way--learning by playing 2. slow down the learning curve by using metaphors, and 3.free their creative music expression from pre-requisite of instrument technique practice.

==Related methods or framework to guide game design==
Mayer’s Multidemedia Deisgn Principles (2001) and Howard Gardner’s 8 multiple intelligences for children’s learning (McCue,2005)

[[Image:Myer_multimedia design principle.jpg]]
[[Image:8intelligence.jpg]]

==Reference==
#Gee, J. P. (2004). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave
#MacMillan. Chap. 3 & 5.
#Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Game-Based Learning. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House. Section “Putting the game and learning together” (pp. 164-173).
#Habgood, M. P. J., Ainsworth, S. E., & Benford, S. (2005). Endogenous fantasy and learning in digital games. Simulation and Gaming, 36(4), 1-16.
#K. A. Wilson, W. L. Bedwell, E. H. Lazzara, E. Salas, C. S. Burke, J. L. Estock, K. L. Orvis, and C. Conkey.( 2009).Relationships Between Game Attributes and Learning Outcomes: Review and Research Proposals Simulation Gaming, 40(2): 217 - 266.
#Baker, R.S.J.d., Habgood, M.P.J., Ainsworth, S.E., Corbett, A.T. (2007) Modeling the Acquisition of Fluent Skill in Educational Action Games. Proceedings of User Modeling 2007, 17-26.
#Squire, K., & Barab, S. (2004). Replaying history: engaging urban underserved students in learning world history through computer simulation games. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Learning sciences (pp. 505-512).Santa Monica, CA: #International Society of the Learning Sciences
#William D. Russell, Mark Newton.Short-Term Psychological Effects of Interactive Video Game Technology: Exercise on Mood and Attention
#Kelleher, C. Alice: Using 3D Gaming Technology to Draw Students into Computer Science. 2006 Game Design and Technology Workshop and Conference, pages 16-20
#Michael Eagle, Tiffany Barnes. (2009). Experimental evaluation of an educational game for improved learning in introductory computing. Proceedings of the 40th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education.
#Shalom M. Fisch. (2005).Making educational computer games "educational".Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Interactiondesign and children.
#Guillaume Denis, Pierre Jouvelot.(2005).Motivation-driven educational game design: applying best practices to music education. Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGCHI International Conference on Advances in computer entertainment technology.
#Patrick McCue.(2005).The crucial role of animated children's educational games. ACM SIGGRAPH 2005 Educators program.

File:8intelligence.jpg

2009-05-19T11:01:10Z

Clare.xie:

Educational Game Design and its attributes that affect learning

2009-05-19T11:00:46Z

Clare.xie: /* Educational game design practice */

Educational games, as a well-accepted effective method in education and training has been discussed a lot in the realm of games and learning in general, but little is known about what components of these games (i.e., game attributes) influence learning outcomes. Researcher in pedagogy has taken much effort in developing and analyzing workable metal models which can help people learn, however, they are not the real practitioner of game design which limits their knowing of the design context as well as conveying the knowledge to the design process. On the other hand, the primary problem that game designers encounter is that they have little theory on which to base the efforts. There are little definitions and frameworks indicating what a game is, or why people play games, or what makes a game great. Game designers are seeking to establish their principles of aesthetics, a framework for criticism, and a model for solidifying the value and contribution in specific field, such as education.

The early stage research on computer games as a platform for studying on intrinsic motivation was carried out by Malone’s work from the late 1970s. It was not standing on the education ground, but still provided good land to root the later investigation of game design attributes for educational purpose. Three categories of individual motivations are brought up based on motivation theory to look into computer game’s effect on learning: challenge, fantasy and curiosity (Habgoods et al. 2005).
#• Challenge: a call to engage in a fight, competition and problem solving situation. In game design, multi-level of change will be provided to suit users with different level of proficiency in different level engagement.
#• Fantasy: an environment that evokes mental images in people’s mind of physical/social situations that not actually present (Malone & Lepper ch. 11, 1987), which highly relates to their own desire, thought or knowledge.
#• Curiosity: a natural desire to learn or know more

==Relationships between learning outcome and the game as educational tool==
(Wilson et al, Gee, J. P. 2004, Prensky,M. 2001)

1. Conflict: conflict presented within a game is positively related to cognitive learning (Wilson et al./Game Attributes and Learning) in problem solving, strategy making, performance evaluation and prediction: explore to understand the situation, find the existing strategy, adaption and try to make new strategy for solving the problem, meanwhile the solving of the conflict help increase people’s motivation and engaging people in next stage of gaming.

2. Challenge: Proper level of challenge feature stimulate people’s knowledge retrieval and keep them stay in flow in natural way. Too much or too little challenge will lead to decrease of the motivation. Also it would affect people’s perception of learning content integrated in the game, which will accordingly decrease their attitudinal value of the content.

3. Adaptation: properly increasing the adaptation features in games help people developing the cognitive strategy making, and too much or too little will hurts people’s motivation and comfort level in playing

4. Fantasy: fantasy help to engage people and stay in flow in a more persistent way, which may affect skill-based outcome and knowledge acquiring; however there is no study results directly pointing out what kind of fantasy would help in the cognitive process leading to skill-based outcome increase. Endogenous fantasy is regarded as better player in engaging people while exogenous fantasy has purer learning content with less integration of animation.

5. Rule/goal setting: specific goals tied to a task are not only for the purpose of leading people to reach an ideal state, but creates a working space which allow people explore, manipulate and try out different resources and strategies in a controllable way. It increases people’s motivation and serve as a connecting point for people to be back to the game.

6. Mystery: a gap of knowledge, which creates a tension between “known” and “un-known”. It activates people’s curiosity directly.

7. Feedback and hint: the specificity and immediacy of the feedback are important in engaging people in the flow of game play, also help them develop proper strategy for winning or problem solving. Feedback and hint is a great point for integrating learning content with the media.

==Game design attributes that impact on learning==
• Animation: key components for building up fantasy

• Character sheet: a map of main character and their functions/features presenting in the game, which constructs the virtual world of game and give hint to people about the possible mechanism workable inside of the game. People get to know a new world from knowing “who are the people” and “how do they work and live” in this world, which provides a starting point for adaption.

• Real-world simulating content: match people’s value, experience, knowledge and emotion with realistic living in some level, which grounds for “challenge” “mystery” and “fantasy” controlling.

• Story: including background setting, scene setting and specific tasks towards a final goal. It works as a line that leads people go though the game play, connect every segment of game design together; character, scene, challenge level, and performance evaluation.

==Educational game design practice==
'''Several issues to focus on for employing game design in educational practice overall:'''
# Complex concept understanding;
# Boring repeated skill practice;
# considerable time investment;
# negative affect experienced in the process

'''Three keys to integrating educational content into computer games:'''
# matching specific educational topics or concepts to their most appropriate medium;
# placing educational content at the hart of game play, so that children engage in the targeted real-world behavior or thinking as they play the game,
# design feedback and hint structures in ways that support and scaffold children into difficult content. (Fisch,2005)

'''Case study I:''' Game design for teaching programming in intro-level

in Eagle&Barnes’ paper about educational game evaluation for learning in introductory computing, it designed experiment that compare computer games with traditional programming assignment in basic concept acquiring, which shows that games can help prepare students to create deeper, more robust understanding of computing concepts (arrays and nested loops) while improving their perceptions of computing homework. Comparing to a traditional programming assignment, game is more effective in complex concept learning, and students FEEL more efficient and more gainful in learning and express positive emotion.

'''Case study II:''' Educational game for music education.

In Denis& Jouvelot’s case study, game is designed as a instrument for playing music to spur the player’s curiosity and creativity by enabling them to easily play music, which is an approach that try to overcome the motivational lapses due to the instrumental limitations leading to resignation and surrender.[] There were several barriers discussed in terms of traditional music education that block people from enjoying and continuing in music learning: 1. considerable time and effort investment in learning music theory and instrumental technique;2. Unpleasant emotions and pressure experienced when playing music publicly and exposed in evaluation. In traditional music education process, the boring and tough practice of basic instrumental technique and the memorizing of music theory harm people’s intrinsic motivation, which come from curiosity, desire of expressing and love of music. Only the students with really strong intension or under restrict regulation from outward force, such as parents and teacher, can go through the process successfully. Here, edutainment as a concept of “making learning fun”- make game for music students to 1. turn the boring learning process of some basic concept and theory into a fun way--learning by playing 2. slow down the learning curve by using metaphors, and 3.free their creative music expression from pre-requisite of instrument technique practice.

==Related methods or framework to guide game design==
Mayer’s Multidemedia Deisgn Principles (2001) and Howard Gardner’s 8 multiple intelligences for children’s learning (McCue,2005)

[[Image:Myer_multimedia design principle.jpg]]
[[Image:8intelligence.jpg]]

==Reference==
#Gee, J. P. (2004). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave
#MacMillan. Chap. 3 & 5.
#Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Game-Based Learning. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House. Section “Putting the game and learning together” (pp. 164-173).
#Habgood, M. P. J., Ainsworth, S. E., & Benford, S. (2005). Endogenous fantasy and learning in digital games. Simulation and Gaming, 36(4), 1-16.
#K. A. Wilson, W. L. Bedwell, E. H. Lazzara, E. Salas, C. S. Burke, J. L. Estock, K. L. Orvis, and C. Conkey.( 2009).Relationships Between Game Attributes and Learning Outcomes: Review and Research Proposals Simulation Gaming, 40(2): 217 - 266.
#Baker, R.S.J.d., Habgood, M.P.J., Ainsworth, S.E., Corbett, A.T. (2007) Modeling the Acquisition of Fluent Skill in Educational Action Games. Proceedings of User Modeling 2007, 17-26.
#Squire, K., & Barab, S. (2004). Replaying history: engaging urban underserved students in learning world history through computer simulation games. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Learning sciences (pp. 505-512).Santa Monica, CA: #International Society of the Learning Sciences
#William D. Russell, Mark Newton.Short-Term Psychological Effects of Interactive Video Game Technology: Exercise on Mood and Attention
#Kelleher, C. Alice: Using 3D Gaming Technology to Draw Students into Computer Science. 2006 Game Design and Technology Workshop and Conference, pages 16-20
#Michael Eagle, Tiffany Barnes. (2009). Experimental evaluation of an educational game for improved learning in introductory computing. Proceedings of the 40th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education.
#Shalom M. Fisch. (2005).Making educational computer games "educational".Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Interactiondesign and children.
#Guillaume Denis, Pierre Jouvelot.(2005).Motivation-driven educational game design: applying best practices to music education. Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGCHI International Conference on Advances in computer entertainment technology.
#Patrick McCue.(2005).The crucial role of animated children's educational games. ACM SIGGRAPH 2005 Educators program.

File:Myer multimedia design principle.jpg

2009-05-19T10:59:11Z

Clare.xie:

Educational Game Design and its attributes that affect learning

2009-05-19T10:58:51Z

Clare.xie: /* Related methods or framework to guide game design */

Educational games, as a well-accepted effective method in education and training has been discussed a lot in the realm of games and learning in general, but little is known about what components of these games (i.e., game attributes) influence learning outcomes. Researcher in pedagogy has taken much effort in developing and analyzing workable metal models which can help people learn, however, they are not the real practitioner of game design which limits their knowing of the design context as well as conveying the knowledge to the design process. On the other hand, the primary problem that game designers encounter is that they have little theory on which to base the efforts. There are little definitions and frameworks indicating what a game is, or why people play games, or what makes a game great. Game designers are seeking to establish their principles of aesthetics, a framework for criticism, and a model for solidifying the value and contribution in specific field, such as education.

The early stage research on computer games as a platform for studying on intrinsic motivation was carried out by Malone’s work from the late 1970s. It was not standing on the education ground, but still provided good land to root the later investigation of game design attributes for educational purpose. Three categories of individual motivations are brought up based on motivation theory to look into computer game’s effect on learning: challenge, fantasy and curiosity (Habgoods et al. 2005).
#• Challenge: a call to engage in a fight, competition and problem solving situation. In game design, multi-level of change will be provided to suit users with different level of proficiency in different level engagement.
#• Fantasy: an environment that evokes mental images in people’s mind of physical/social situations that not actually present (Malone & Lepper ch. 11, 1987), which highly relates to their own desire, thought or knowledge.
#• Curiosity: a natural desire to learn or know more

==Relationships between learning outcome and the game as educational tool==
(Wilson et al, Gee, J. P. 2004, Prensky,M. 2001)

1. Conflict: conflict presented within a game is positively related to cognitive learning (Wilson et al./Game Attributes and Learning) in problem solving, strategy making, performance evaluation and prediction: explore to understand the situation, find the existing strategy, adaption and try to make new strategy for solving the problem, meanwhile the solving of the conflict help increase people’s motivation and engaging people in next stage of gaming.

2. Challenge: Proper level of challenge feature stimulate people’s knowledge retrieval and keep them stay in flow in natural way. Too much or too little challenge will lead to decrease of the motivation. Also it would affect people’s perception of learning content integrated in the game, which will accordingly decrease their attitudinal value of the content.

3. Adaptation: properly increasing the adaptation features in games help people developing the cognitive strategy making, and too much or too little will hurts people’s motivation and comfort level in playing

4. Fantasy: fantasy help to engage people and stay in flow in a more persistent way, which may affect skill-based outcome and knowledge acquiring; however there is no study results directly pointing out what kind of fantasy would help in the cognitive process leading to skill-based outcome increase. Endogenous fantasy is regarded as better player in engaging people while exogenous fantasy has purer learning content with less integration of animation.

5. Rule/goal setting: specific goals tied to a task are not only for the purpose of leading people to reach an ideal state, but creates a working space which allow people explore, manipulate and try out different resources and strategies in a controllable way. It increases people’s motivation and serve as a connecting point for people to be back to the game.

6. Mystery: a gap of knowledge, which creates a tension between “known” and “un-known”. It activates people’s curiosity directly.

7. Feedback and hint: the specificity and immediacy of the feedback are important in engaging people in the flow of game play, also help them develop proper strategy for winning or problem solving. Feedback and hint is a great point for integrating learning content with the media.

==Game design attributes that impact on learning==
• Animation: key components for building up fantasy

• Character sheet: a map of main character and their functions/features presenting in the game, which constructs the virtual world of game and give hint to people about the possible mechanism workable inside of the game. People get to know a new world from knowing “who are the people” and “how do they work and live” in this world, which provides a starting point for adaption.

• Real-world simulating content: match people’s value, experience, knowledge and emotion with realistic living in some level, which grounds for “challenge” “mystery” and “fantasy” controlling.

• Story: including background setting, scene setting and specific tasks towards a final goal. It works as a line that leads people go though the game play, connect every segment of game design together; character, scene, challenge level, and performance evaluation.

==Educational game design practice==
'''Several issues to focus on for employing game design in educational practice overall:'''
#1. Complex concept understanding;
#2. Boring repeated skill practice;
#3. considerable time investment;
#4. negative affect experienced in the process

'''Three keys to integrating educational content into computer games:'''
#1, matching specific educational topics or concepts to their most appropriate medium;
#2, placing educational content at the hart of game play, so that children engage in the targeted real-world behavior or thinking as they play the game,
#3, design feedback and hint structures in ways that support and scaffold children into difficult content. (Fisch,2005)

'''Case study I:''' Game design for teaching programming in intro-level

in Eagle&Barnes’ paper about educational game evaluation for learning in introductory computing, it designed experiment that compare computer games with traditional programming assignment in basic concept acquiring, which shows that games can help prepare students to create deeper, more robust understanding of computing concepts (arrays and nested loops) while improving their perceptions of computing homework. Comparing to a traditional programming assignment, game is more effective in complex concept learning, and students FEEL more efficient and more gainful in learning and express positive emotion.

'''Case study II:''' Educational game for music education.

In Denis& Jouvelot’s case study, game is designed as a instrument for playing music to spur the player’s curiosity and creativity by enabling them to easily play music, which is an approach that try to overcome the motivational lapses due to the instrumental limitations leading to resignation and surrender.[] There were several barriers discussed in terms of traditional music education that block people from enjoying and continuing in music learning: 1. considerable time and effort investment in learning music theory and instrumental technique;2. Unpleasant emotions and pressure experienced when playing music publicly and exposed in evaluation. In traditional music education process, the boring and tough practice of basic instrumental technique and the memorizing of music theory harm people’s intrinsic motivation, which come from curiosity, desire of expressing and love of music. Only the students with really strong intension or under restrict regulation from outward force, such as parents and teacher, can go through the process successfully. Here, edutainment as a concept of “making learning fun”- make game for music students to 1. turn the boring learning process of some basic concept and theory into a fun way--learning by playing 2. slow down the learning curve by using metaphors, and 3.free their creative music expression from pre-requisite of instrument technique practice.

==Related methods or framework to guide game design==
Mayer’s Multidemedia Deisgn Principles (2001) and Howard Gardner’s 8 multiple intelligences for children’s learning (McCue,2005)

[[Image:Myer_multimedia design principle.jpg]]
[[Image:8intelligence.jpg]]

==Reference==
#Gee, J. P. (2004). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave
#MacMillan. Chap. 3 & 5.
#Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Game-Based Learning. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House. Section “Putting the game and learning together” (pp. 164-173).
#Habgood, M. P. J., Ainsworth, S. E., & Benford, S. (2005). Endogenous fantasy and learning in digital games. Simulation and Gaming, 36(4), 1-16.
#K. A. Wilson, W. L. Bedwell, E. H. Lazzara, E. Salas, C. S. Burke, J. L. Estock, K. L. Orvis, and C. Conkey.( 2009).Relationships Between Game Attributes and Learning Outcomes: Review and Research Proposals Simulation Gaming, 40(2): 217 - 266.
#Baker, R.S.J.d., Habgood, M.P.J., Ainsworth, S.E., Corbett, A.T. (2007) Modeling the Acquisition of Fluent Skill in Educational Action Games. Proceedings of User Modeling 2007, 17-26.
#Squire, K., & Barab, S. (2004). Replaying history: engaging urban underserved students in learning world history through computer simulation games. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Learning sciences (pp. 505-512).Santa Monica, CA: #International Society of the Learning Sciences
#William D. Russell, Mark Newton.Short-Term Psychological Effects of Interactive Video Game Technology: Exercise on Mood and Attention
#Kelleher, C. Alice: Using 3D Gaming Technology to Draw Students into Computer Science. 2006 Game Design and Technology Workshop and Conference, pages 16-20
#Michael Eagle, Tiffany Barnes. (2009). Experimental evaluation of an educational game for improved learning in introductory computing. Proceedings of the 40th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education.
#Shalom M. Fisch. (2005).Making educational computer games "educational".Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Interactiondesign and children.
#Guillaume Denis, Pierre Jouvelot.(2005).Motivation-driven educational game design: applying best practices to music education. Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGCHI International Conference on Advances in computer entertainment technology.
#Patrick McCue.(2005).The crucial role of animated children's educational games. ACM SIGGRAPH 2005 Educators program.

Educational Game Design and its attributes that affect learning

2009-05-19T10:56:52Z

Clare.xie: New page: Educational games, as a well-accepted effective method in education and training has been discussed a lot in the realm of games and learning in general, but little is known about what comp...

Educational games, as a well-accepted effective method in education and training has been discussed a lot in the realm of games and learning in general, but little is known about what components of these games (i.e., game attributes) influence learning outcomes. Researcher in pedagogy has taken much effort in developing and analyzing workable metal models which can help people learn, however, they are not the real practitioner of game design which limits their knowing of the design context as well as conveying the knowledge to the design process. On the other hand, the primary problem that game designers encounter is that they have little theory on which to base the efforts. There are little definitions and frameworks indicating what a game is, or why people play games, or what makes a game great. Game designers are seeking to establish their principles of aesthetics, a framework for criticism, and a model for solidifying the value and contribution in specific field, such as education.

The early stage research on computer games as a platform for studying on intrinsic motivation was carried out by Malone’s work from the late 1970s. It was not standing on the education ground, but still provided good land to root the later investigation of game design attributes for educational purpose. Three categories of individual motivations are brought up based on motivation theory to look into computer game’s effect on learning: challenge, fantasy and curiosity (Habgoods et al. 2005).
#• Challenge: a call to engage in a fight, competition and problem solving situation. In game design, multi-level of change will be provided to suit users with different level of proficiency in different level engagement.
#• Fantasy: an environment that evokes mental images in people’s mind of physical/social situations that not actually present (Malone & Lepper ch. 11, 1987), which highly relates to their own desire, thought or knowledge.
#• Curiosity: a natural desire to learn or know more

==Relationships between learning outcome and the game as educational tool==
(Wilson et al, Gee, J. P. 2004, Prensky,M. 2001)

1. Conflict: conflict presented within a game is positively related to cognitive learning (Wilson et al./Game Attributes and Learning) in problem solving, strategy making, performance evaluation and prediction: explore to understand the situation, find the existing strategy, adaption and try to make new strategy for solving the problem, meanwhile the solving of the conflict help increase people’s motivation and engaging people in next stage of gaming.

2. Challenge: Proper level of challenge feature stimulate people’s knowledge retrieval and keep them stay in flow in natural way. Too much or too little challenge will lead to decrease of the motivation. Also it would affect people’s perception of learning content integrated in the game, which will accordingly decrease their attitudinal value of the content.

3. Adaptation: properly increasing the adaptation features in games help people developing the cognitive strategy making, and too much or too little will hurts people’s motivation and comfort level in playing

4. Fantasy: fantasy help to engage people and stay in flow in a more persistent way, which may affect skill-based outcome and knowledge acquiring; however there is no study results directly pointing out what kind of fantasy would help in the cognitive process leading to skill-based outcome increase. Endogenous fantasy is regarded as better player in engaging people while exogenous fantasy has purer learning content with less integration of animation.

5. Rule/goal setting: specific goals tied to a task are not only for the purpose of leading people to reach an ideal state, but creates a working space which allow people explore, manipulate and try out different resources and strategies in a controllable way. It increases people’s motivation and serve as a connecting point for people to be back to the game.

6. Mystery: a gap of knowledge, which creates a tension between “known” and “un-known”. It activates people’s curiosity directly.

7. Feedback and hint: the specificity and immediacy of the feedback are important in engaging people in the flow of game play, also help them develop proper strategy for winning or problem solving. Feedback and hint is a great point for integrating learning content with the media.

==Game design attributes that impact on learning==
• Animation: key components for building up fantasy

• Character sheet: a map of main character and their functions/features presenting in the game, which constructs the virtual world of game and give hint to people about the possible mechanism workable inside of the game. People get to know a new world from knowing “who are the people” and “how do they work and live” in this world, which provides a starting point for adaption.

• Real-world simulating content: match people’s value, experience, knowledge and emotion with realistic living in some level, which grounds for “challenge” “mystery” and “fantasy” controlling.

• Story: including background setting, scene setting and specific tasks towards a final goal. It works as a line that leads people go though the game play, connect every segment of game design together; character, scene, challenge level, and performance evaluation.

==Educational game design practice==
'''Several issues to focus on for employing game design in educational practice overall:'''
#1. Complex concept understanding;
#2. Boring repeated skill practice;
#3. considerable time investment;
#4. negative affect experienced in the process

'''Three keys to integrating educational content into computer games:'''
#1, matching specific educational topics or concepts to their most appropriate medium;
#2, placing educational content at the hart of game play, so that children engage in the targeted real-world behavior or thinking as they play the game,
#3, design feedback and hint structures in ways that support and scaffold children into difficult content. (Fisch,2005)

'''Case study I:''' Game design for teaching programming in intro-level

in Eagle&Barnes’ paper about educational game evaluation for learning in introductory computing, it designed experiment that compare computer games with traditional programming assignment in basic concept acquiring, which shows that games can help prepare students to create deeper, more robust understanding of computing concepts (arrays and nested loops) while improving their perceptions of computing homework. Comparing to a traditional programming assignment, game is more effective in complex concept learning, and students FEEL more efficient and more gainful in learning and express positive emotion.

'''Case study II:''' Educational game for music education.

In Denis& Jouvelot’s case study, game is designed as a instrument for playing music to spur the player’s curiosity and creativity by enabling them to easily play music, which is an approach that try to overcome the motivational lapses due to the instrumental limitations leading to resignation and surrender.[] There were several barriers discussed in terms of traditional music education that block people from enjoying and continuing in music learning: 1. considerable time and effort investment in learning music theory and instrumental technique;2. Unpleasant emotions and pressure experienced when playing music publicly and exposed in evaluation. In traditional music education process, the boring and tough practice of basic instrumental technique and the memorizing of music theory harm people’s intrinsic motivation, which come from curiosity, desire of expressing and love of music. Only the students with really strong intension or under restrict regulation from outward force, such as parents and teacher, can go through the process successfully. Here, edutainment as a concept of “making learning fun”- make game for music students to 1. turn the boring learning process of some basic concept and theory into a fun way--learning by playing 2. slow down the learning curve by using metaphors, and 3.free their creative music expression from pre-requisite of instrument technique practice.

==Related methods or framework to guide game design==
Mayer’s Multidemedia Deisgn Principles (2001) and Howard Gardner’s 8 multiple intelligences for children’s learning (McCue,2005)

[[Image:Myer_multimedia design principle]]
[[Image:8intelligence.jpg]]

==Reference==
#Gee, J. P. (2004). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave
#MacMillan. Chap. 3 & 5.
#Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Game-Based Learning. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House. Section “Putting the game and learning together” (pp. 164-173).
#Habgood, M. P. J., Ainsworth, S. E., & Benford, S. (2005). Endogenous fantasy and learning in digital games. Simulation and Gaming, 36(4), 1-16.
#K. A. Wilson, W. L. Bedwell, E. H. Lazzara, E. Salas, C. S. Burke, J. L. Estock, K. L. Orvis, and C. Conkey.( 2009).Relationships Between Game Attributes and Learning Outcomes: Review and Research Proposals Simulation Gaming, 40(2): 217 - 266.
#Baker, R.S.J.d., Habgood, M.P.J., Ainsworth, S.E., Corbett, A.T. (2007) Modeling the Acquisition of Fluent Skill in Educational Action Games. Proceedings of User Modeling 2007, 17-26.
#Squire, K., & Barab, S. (2004). Replaying history: engaging urban underserved students in learning world history through computer simulation games. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Learning sciences (pp. 505-512).Santa Monica, CA: #International Society of the Learning Sciences
#William D. Russell, Mark Newton.Short-Term Psychological Effects of Interactive Video Game Technology: Exercise on Mood and Attention
#Kelleher, C. Alice: Using 3D Gaming Technology to Draw Students into Computer Science. 2006 Game Design and Technology Workshop and Conference, pages 16-20
#Michael Eagle, Tiffany Barnes. (2009). Experimental evaluation of an educational game for improved learning in introductory computing. Proceedings of the 40th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education.
#Shalom M. Fisch. (2005).Making educational computer games "educational".Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Interactiondesign and children.
#Guillaume Denis, Pierre Jouvelot.(2005).Motivation-driven educational game design: applying best practices to music education. Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGCHI International Conference on Advances in computer entertainment technology.
#Patrick McCue.(2005).The crucial role of animated children's educational games. ACM SIGGRAPH 2005 Educators program.

Goal setting and its constructs

2009-05-13T18:39:48Z

Clare.xie: /* Goal setting’s effect on student’s performance with classroom setting */

Goal setting and its constructs

2009-05-13T18:39:30Z

Clare.xie: /* Feedback */

Goal setting and its constructs

2009-05-13T18:38:26Z

Clare.xie:

Educational Game Design and its attributes that helps learning

2009-05-04T16:12:11Z

Clare.xie:

Rationale
Educational games, as an well-accepted effective method in education and training has been discussed a lot in the realm of games and learning in general, but little is known about what components of these games (i.e., game attributes) influence learning outcomes. Researcher in pedagogy has taken much effort in developing and analyzing workable metal models which can help people learn, however, they are not the real practitioner of game design which limits their knowing of the design context as well as conveying the knowledge to the design process. On the other hand, the primary problem that game designers encounter is that they have little theory on which to base the efforts. There are little definitions and frameworks indicating what a game is, or why people play games, or what makes a game great... Game designers are seeking to establish their principles of aesthetics, a framework for criticism, and a model for solidifying the value and contribution in specific field, such as education.
The purpose of this article aims at helping designers to better understand the educational context and fit their work into a more concrete situation for creating values.

Outline (proposed)
Cognitive learning process and its attributes related to educational game
i. Cognitive model
ii. Engagement and addiction (argument: goal of playing games)
iii. Attention and affect
iv. Intrinsic/extrinsic motivation (interest vs. rewards)
v. Combination of content and media (real-world experience and gaming behavior)

Relation between educational outcome and the involvement of game as educational tool.
i. acquisition of specific skills
ii. conceptual knowledge developing
iii. forming learning strategy
iv. self-efficacy and self-regulation

Game attributes that impact on learning: “distracting” or “engaging”
i. Animation
ii. Character sheet
iii. Real-world simulating content
iv. Story telling

Educational game design practice :
i. Game design for teaching programming in intro-level
ii. Educational game for music education.
iii. Educational game with classroom setting
Cost and benefit of educational game design

==Reference==

#Gee, J. P. (2004). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Chap. 3 & 5. Focus on how the principles are illustrated.
#Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Game-Based Learning. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House. Section “Putting the game and learning together” (pp. 164-173).
#Habgood, M. P. J., Ainsworth, S. E., & Benford, S. (2005). Endogenous fantasy and learning in digital games. Simulation and Gaming, 36(4), 1-16.
#K. A. Wilson, W. L. Bedwell, E. H. Lazzara, E. Salas, C. S. Burke, J. L. Estock, K. L. Orvis, and C. Conkey.( 2009).Relationships Between Game Attributes and Learning Outcomes: Review and Research Proposals Simulation Gaming, 40(2): 217 - 266.
#Baker, R.S.J.d., Habgood, M.P.J., Ainsworth, S.E., Corbett, A.T. (2007) Modeling the Acquisition of Fluent Skill in Educational Action Games. Proceedings of User Modeling 2007, 17-26.
#Squire, K., & Barab, S. (2004). Replaying history: engaging urban underserved students in learning world history through computer simulation games. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Learning sciences (pp. 505-512).Santa Monica, CA: International Society of the Learning Sciences
#William D. Russell, Mark Newton.Short-Term Psychological Effects of Interactive Video Game Technology: Exercise on Mood and Attention
#Kelleher, C. Alice: Using 3D Gaming Technology to Draw Students into Computer Science. 2006 Game Design and Technology Workshop and Conference, pages 16-20
#Michael Eagle, Tiffany Barnes. (2009). Experimental evaluation of an educational game for improved learning in introductory computing. Proceedings of the 40th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education.
#Shalom M. Fisch. (2005).Making educational computer games "educational".Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Interaction design and children.
#Guillaume Denis, Pierre Jouvelot.(2005).Motivation-driven educational game design: applying best practices to music education. Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGCHI International Conference on Advances in computer entertainment technology.
#Patrick McCue.(2005).The crucial role of animated children's educational games. ACM SIGGRAPH 2005 Educators program.

Educational Game Design and its attributes that helps learning

2009-05-04T15:41:32Z

Clare.xie: New page: Rationale Educational games, as an well-accepted effective method in education and training has been discussed a lot in the realm of games and learning in general, but little is known abo...

Rationale
Educational games, as an well-accepted effective method in education and training has been discussed a lot in the realm of games and learning in general, but little is known about what components of these games (i.e., game attributes) influence learning outcomes. Researcher in pedagogy has taken much effort in developing and analyzing workable metal models which can help people learn, however, they are not the real practitioner of game design which limits their knowing of the design context as well as conveying the knowledge to the design process. On the other hand, the primary problem that game designers encounter is that they have little theory on which to base the efforts. There are little definitions and frameworks indicating what a game is, or why people play games, or what makes a game great... Game designers are seeking to establish their principles of aesthetics, a framework for criticism, and a model for solidifying the value and contribution in specific field, such as education.
The purpose of this article aims at helping designers to better understand the educational context and fit their work into a more concrete situation for creating values.

Outline (proposed)
Cognitive learning process and its attributes related to educational game
i. Cognitive model
ii. Engagement and addiction (argument: goal of playing games)
iii. Attention and affect
iv. Intrinsic/extrinsic motivation (interest vs. rewards)
v. Combination of content and media (real-world experience and gaming behavior)

Relation between educational outcome and the involvement of game as educational tool.
i. acquisition of specific skills
ii. conceptual knowledge developing
iii. forming learning strategy
iv. self-efficacy and self-regulation

Game attributes that impact on learning: “distracting” or “engaging”
i. Animation
ii. Character sheet
iii. Real-world simulating content
iv. Story telling

Educational game design practice :
i. Game design for teaching programming in intro-level
ii. Educational game for music education.
iii. Educational game with classroom setting
Cost and benefit of educational game design

Reference:

Gee, J. P. (2004). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Chap. 3 & 5. Focus on how the principles are illustrated.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Game-Based Learning. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House. Section “Putting the game and learning together” (pp. 164-173).
Habgood, M. P. J., Ainsworth, S. E., & Benford, S. (2005). Endogenous fantasy and learning in digital games. Simulation and Gaming, 36(4), 1-16.
K. A. Wilson, W. L. Bedwell, E. H. Lazzara, E. Salas, C. S. Burke, J. L. Estock, K. L. Orvis, and C. Conkey.( 2009).Relationships Between Game Attributes and Learning Outcomes: Review and Research Proposals Simulation Gaming, 40(2): 217 - 266.
Baker, R.S.J.d., Habgood, M.P.J., Ainsworth, S.E., Corbett, A.T. (2007) Modeling the Acquisition of Fluent Skill in Educational Action Games. Proceedings of User Modeling 2007, 17-26.
Squire, K., & Barab, S. (2004). Replaying history: engaging urban underserved students in learning world history through computer simulation games. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Learning sciences (pp. 505-512).Santa Monica, CA: International Society of the Learning Sciences
William D. Russell, Mark Newton.Short-Term Psychological Effects of Interactive Video Game Technology: Exercise on Mood and Attention
Kelleher, C. Alice: Using 3D Gaming Technology to Draw Students into Computer Science. 2006 Game Design and Technology Workshop and Conference, pages 16-20
Michael Eagle, Tiffany Barnes. (2009). Experimental evaluation of an educational game for improved learning in introductory computing. Proceedings of the 40th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education.
Shalom M. Fisch. (2005).Making educational computer games "educational".Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Interaction design and children.
Guillaume Denis, Pierre Jouvelot.(2005).Motivation-driven educational game design: applying best practices to music education. Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGCHI International Conference on Advances in computer entertainment technology.
Patrick McCue.(2005).The crucial role of animated children's educational games. ACM SIGGRAPH 2005 Educators program.

Goal setting and its constructs

2009-04-15T03:16:45Z

Clare.xie: /* Feedback */

"Goal" has been defined simply as "something that the person wants to achieve" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 2). Goal setting theory assumes that human action is directed by conscious goals and intentions" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 4). "Goal setting" refers to a specific outcome that an individual is striving to achieve(Dweck, 1992).

==Goal setting==
Goal setting is a process that involves setting up specific objects, measurements and strategy to achieve the goal, which also includes the strategy modification in terms of the feedback or error made.According to earlier research, the two major attributes of goal setting are Content and Intensity(Rand, 1967).

'''Content of a goal''' is mainly talking about "WHAT" :the object and final results that people want to achieve, which contains several aspects:1. Goal specificity: how specific and clear the goal is: abstract goal, such as "find a good job", or really clarified goal, such as:"I want to be an interface designer in Microsoft who can be involved in improving 'Microsoft office' series"; 2. Task difficulty: how difficult to reach the goal, which actually includes cognitive process of self-esteem. It's a subjective comparing between the degree of proficiency or level of performance people are seeking and the level of current capability or potential capability that people have, which also involves the estimation of the effort that will take. More investment of effort are predicted, more difficult the goal that people would regard as. There was some arguments about the notion of task difficulty and goal difficulty. According to Locke & Latham's paper in 1981, the terms task difficulty and goal difficulty were often used interchangeably, but normally, goal refers to a final goal in terms of an event, while the tasks included could be sub-goals under the final one or the steps toward the termination of the whole process.

The evidence of a positive, linear relation between goal difficulty and task performance (assuming sufficient ability) was firstly found by Locke (1968), and later studies had supported this finding (Locke & Latham,1981), which says harder goals led to better performance than easy goals under the assumption that people have sufficient ability and further have accurate estimate of the ability.

Recent research in self-efficacy found out that students with over-confidence, who over-estimate their ability in terms of their goal setting, would have worse grades comparing to others, which also hurts their post-efficacy. But researcher also found that the outcome could be even worse for the student with self-humiliation. So it might imply that underestimation of the goal difficulty and over-estimation of self-capability may generate better outcome than overestimation of goal difficulty and underestimation of the ability.

Specific hard goals versus "do best" goals or no goals: Previous research found that specific, challenging (difficult) goals elicit higher effort investment and output than vague goals such as "do your best" (Locke, 1968). Subsequent research has strongly supported these results, although in a number of studies, no distinction was made between groups told to do their best and those assigned no specific goals(Locke & Latham,1981).

There are other aspects about multiple goals are goal complexity and goal conflict: Goal Complexity refers to the number and interrelation of the results aimed for, while Goal Conflict refers to the degree to which attaining one goal negates or subverts attaining another.

And '''Intensity of a goal''' is about "HOW", pertaining to the process of setting the goal or of determining how to reach it, which would be measured by such factors as the scope of the cognitive process, the degree of effort required, the importance of the goal, and the context in which it is set(Locke & Latham,1981). Goal intensity is positively related to goal content. more complex goal-setting requires more intense cognitive process to figure out, also may take longer time and more iteration in terms of initial goal modification and attaining.

According to Locke et al's paper in 1981, the interest of researchers in goal setting at that time had two sources, one academic and the other organizational. The academic source extends back in time from Ryan (1970) and G. Miller, Galanter, and Pribrani (1960), through Lewin, to the Wurzburg School and the associated concepts of intention, task, set, and level of aspiration (see Ryan, 1970, for a summary). The organizational source is traced from Management by Objectives programs, later widely used in industry (Odiorne, 1978).

Nowadays, Goal setting is an important componentof social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) in terms of its effect on task performance, while in the industry, lots of online tutorial, management tool and theory are produced based on goal setting components and aim at improving employee's working performance.

==Goal commitment==

Goal commitment is also an important component in goal setting theory. According to Locke et al (1981), it refers to the determination to try for a goal. Commitment implies the extension of effort,toward the accomplishment of an original goal and emphasizes an unwillingness to abandon or to lower the original goal(Campion & Lord, 1982). Goal commitment is basically about how much people would like to stick onto the goal: more important the goal is, more commitment to the goal and more persistent that people will be in attaining the goal.

Also self-efficacy, pre-investment (how much effort or resource have already been put into achieving the goal)and social environment may also influence the developing of goal commitment. In addition, the emphasis is on commitment to difficult or challenging goals instead of comparably easy or simple goals.

==Feedback==

Feedback generally refers to the information or situation that presents the output generated by the system or specific mechanism having causal information or behavior as input. Feedback was also called knowledge of result [KR] in Locke's study (Locke et al.), and attempts were made to separate the effects of feedback (i.e., knowledge of results [KR]) from the effects of goal setting to determine whether KR directly influenced performance or whether its effects were mediated by goal-setting activity (Locke, 1967; Locke & Bryan, 1968, 1969a, 1969b; Locke, Cartledge, & Koeppel, 1968). In the previous studies describe in Locke's paper in early 1980s, all subjects with specific goals also received knowledge of their performance in relation to their goals; individuals in the KR conditions received knowledge of their actual scores presented in such a way as to preclude their use in setting goals. Such knowledge of scores did not lead to better performance than no knowledge of scores. The evidence from these and related studies indicated that knowledge of scores was not sufficient to improve task performance. However, since groups with goals and no KR were not included, these studies did not test the possibility that KR may be a necessary condition for goals to affect performance(Locke, et al, 1981). These studies were conduct in late 1960s, and in later Power's study(1973), the linkage between goal setting and feedback within control systems was suggested. According to Powers, both goals and task feedback are compared by the mechanism labeled “comparator”. If a sufficiently large discrepancy of error exists, some form of remedial action is triggered. The dependence of the comparator on both goals and feedback is quite consistent with recent goal-setting research demonstrating that neither goals nor feedback, by themselves, significantly affect performance, but the feedback will definitely affect goal-setting or mediate the goal setting for reducing the discrepancy and the error-eliminating response will be initiated. Taking "to do a programming homework" as an example, the student may set up a goal as "spend 1 hour to complete the homework alone", but after half an hour, he notices that there are always errors reported and debugging takes much more time than his prior prediction, so he might want to change the goal into either spending one more hour in this homework or asking for help from peers or TA. Here, error reports from the compiler is the feedback or called knowledge of results that is interpreted to the student, which actually mediate his goal-setting.

Goal setting and feedback are widely believed to affect performance positively through enhancing the information and motivation necessary for work performance (Earley, Northcraft, Lee, & Lituchy, 1990).The performance benefit that goals produce is argued to stem from influencing the effort, persistence, and strategic direction of individual performance ( Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981).

Individual difference in laboratory study had also been looked into in Locke's study in early 1980s, and several variables have been examined: demographic variable (education, sex, age, race, job tenure) and personality variable (need for achievement, need for independence, self-esteem, internal vs. external control), but little significant results are found due to the inconsistent individual differences in the laboratory study (Locke et al. 1981).

==Goal setting’s effect on student’s performance with classroom setting==

'''Student Expectations About Affective Correlates of Academic'''

Performance often improves when difficult and specific goals have been set, which does not mean that goal setting techniques will automatically enhance actual school performance, of course, because that will also depend on other factors. One such factor is student perceptions of the consequences of goal setting, especially perception of affective consequences, which highly relates to the subjective estimation of the goal difficulty. To the extent that the affective consequences of goal setting are perceived as negative, it should be more difficult to persuade students to commit themselves to difficult and specific goals, no matter what the actual consequences are and even if other expected consequences are favorable. As a conclusion, students' expectations of affective consequences should support rather than disrupt beneficial effects of goal setting on performance, and examining the extent to which students have negative affective expectations about goal setting is critical(Wicker, Brown, Hagen, Boring, Wiehe, 1991).

==Some main research findings in goal setting ==
*specific and challenging goals lead to higher performance than easy goals, "do your best" goals, or no goals (Locke et al. 1981);
*A harder task led to better weight-lifting performance than an easier task when subjects were deceived as to the actual weights (Ness & Patton,1979);
*Goals affect performance by directing attention, mobilizing effort, increasing persistence, and motivating strategy development (Locke et al. 1981);
*Goal setting is most likely to improve task performance when:
**The goals are specific and sufficiently challenging;
**The subjects have sufficient ability or the ability differences are controlled;
**Feedback is provided to show progress in relation to the goal, rewards such as money are given for goal attainment;
**The experimenter or manager is supportive, and assigned goals are accepted by the individual (Locke et al. 1981).
*No reliable individual differences have emerged in goal-setting studies, probably because the goals were typically assigned rather than self-set (Locke et al. 1981);
*Error could be reduced by changing initial goals (Campion & Lord, 1982);
*Multiple goals: several tasks may be effectively coordinated through the use of multiple, goal dependent feedback loops(Campion & Lord, 1982);
*The choice of initial goals: in many situation, the choice of initial goals is an important determinant of performance, especially when task feedback is slow or when tasks are not repetitive (Campion & Lord, 1982);
*Goals may be set close to levels of past performance on familiar tasks (Campion & Lord, 1982);
*Initial goals may be derived from higher level objectives which are hierarchically organized (Campion & Lord, 1982);
*Initial goals may be externally influenced by social processed such as social comparison of modeling (Campion & Lord, 1982).

==References==

#Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969-1980. Edwin A. Locke, Lise M. Saari, Karyll N. ShawGary P. Latham
#A Control Systems Conceptualization of the Goal-Setting and Changing Process. (1982). Michael A. Campion, Robert G. Lord.
#Goal Commitment and the Goal-Setting Process: Problems, Prospects, and Proposals for Future Research. (1987).John R. Hollenbeck and Howard J. Klein.
#Goal Setting, Achievement Orientation, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meditational Analysis. (1994). Andrew J. Elliot, Judith M. Harackiewicz.
#Achievement Goals in the Classroom: Students' Learning Strategies and Motivation Processes. (1988).Carole Ames, Jennifer Archer.
#Student Expectations about Affective Correlates of Academic Goal Setting. (1991). Frank W. Wicker, Gall Brown, Anastasia S. Hagen, Wayne Boring, James A. Wiehe.

Goal setting and its constructs

2009-04-15T03:12:22Z

Clare.xie: /* Feedback */

"Goal" has been defined simply as "something that the person wants to achieve" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 2). Goal setting theory assumes that human action is directed by conscious goals and intentions" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 4). "Goal setting" refers to a specific outcome that an individual is striving to achieve(Dweck, 1992).

==Goal setting==
Goal setting is a process that involves setting up specific objects, measurements and strategy to achieve the goal, which also includes the strategy modification in terms of the feedback or error made.According to earlier research, the two major attributes of goal setting are Content and Intensity(Rand, 1967).

'''Content of a goal''' is mainly talking about "WHAT" :the object and final results that people want to achieve, which contains several aspects:1. Goal specificity: how specific and clear the goal is: abstract goal, such as "find a good job", or really clarified goal, such as:"I want to be an interface designer in Microsoft who can be involved in improving 'Microsoft office' series"; 2. Task difficulty: how difficult to reach the goal, which actually includes cognitive process of self-esteem. It's a subjective comparing between the degree of proficiency or level of performance people are seeking and the level of current capability or potential capability that people have, which also involves the estimation of the effort that will take. More investment of effort are predicted, more difficult the goal that people would regard as. There was some arguments about the notion of task difficulty and goal difficulty. According to Locke & Latham's paper in 1981, the terms task difficulty and goal difficulty were often used interchangeably, but normally, goal refers to a final goal in terms of an event, while the tasks included could be sub-goals under the final one or the steps toward the termination of the whole process.

The evidence of a positive, linear relation between goal difficulty and task performance (assuming sufficient ability) was firstly found by Locke (1968), and later studies had supported this finding (Locke & Latham,1981), which says harder goals led to better performance than easy goals under the assumption that people have sufficient ability and further have accurate estimate of the ability.

Recent research in self-efficacy found out that students with over-confidence, who over-estimate their ability in terms of their goal setting, would have worse grades comparing to others, which also hurts their post-efficacy. But researcher also found that the outcome could be even worse for the student with self-humiliation. So it might imply that underestimation of the goal difficulty and over-estimation of self-capability may generate better outcome than overestimation of goal difficulty and underestimation of the ability.

Specific hard goals versus "do best" goals or no goals: Previous research found that specific, challenging (difficult) goals elicit higher effort investment and output than vague goals such as "do your best" (Locke, 1968). Subsequent research has strongly supported these results, although in a number of studies, no distinction was made between groups told to do their best and those assigned no specific goals(Locke & Latham,1981).

There are other aspects about multiple goals are goal complexity and goal conflict: Goal Complexity refers to the number and interrelation of the results aimed for, while Goal Conflict refers to the degree to which attaining one goal negates or subverts attaining another.

And '''Intensity of a goal''' is about "HOW", pertaining to the process of setting the goal or of determining how to reach it, which would be measured by such factors as the scope of the cognitive process, the degree of effort required, the importance of the goal, and the context in which it is set(Locke & Latham,1981). Goal intensity is positively related to goal content. more complex goal-setting requires more intense cognitive process to figure out, also may take longer time and more iteration in terms of initial goal modification and attaining.

According to Locke et al's paper in 1981, the interest of researchers in goal setting at that time had two sources, one academic and the other organizational. The academic source extends back in time from Ryan (1970) and G. Miller, Galanter, and Pribrani (1960), through Lewin, to the Wurzburg School and the associated concepts of intention, task, set, and level of aspiration (see Ryan, 1970, for a summary). The organizational source is traced from Management by Objectives programs, later widely used in industry (Odiorne, 1978).

Nowadays, Goal setting is an important componentof social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) in terms of its effect on task performance, while in the industry, lots of online tutorial, management tool and theory are produced based on goal setting components and aim at improving employee's working performance.

==Goal commitment==

Goal commitment is also an important component in goal setting theory. According to Locke et al (1981), it refers to the determination to try for a goal. Commitment implies the extension of effort,toward the accomplishment of an original goal and emphasizes an unwillingness to abandon or to lower the original goal(Campion & Lord, 1982). Goal commitment is basically about how much people would like to stick onto the goal: more important the goal is, more commitment to the goal and more persistent that people will be in attaining the goal.

Also self-efficacy, pre-investment (how much effort or resource have already been put into achieving the goal)and social environment may also influence the developing of goal commitment. In addition, the emphasis is on commitment to difficult or challenging goals instead of comparably easy or simple goals.

==Feedback==

Feedback generally refers to the information or situation that presents the output generated by the system or specific mechanism having causal information or behavior as input. Feedback was also called knowledge of result [KR] in Locke's study (Locke et al.), and attempts were made to separate the effects of feedback (i.e., knowledge of results [KR]) from the effects of goal setting to determine whether KR directly influenced performance or whether its effects were mediated by goal-setting activity (Locke, 1967; Locke & Bryan, 1968, 1969a, 1969b; Locke, Cartledge, & Koeppel, 1968). In the most carefully controlled of these previous studies, all subjects with specific goals also received knowledge of their performance in relation to their goals; individuals in the KR conditions received knowledge of their actual scores presented in such a way as to preclude their use in setting goals. Such knowledge of scores did not lead to better performance than no knowledge of scores. The evidence from these and related studies indicated that knowledge of scores was not sufficient to improve task performance. However, since groups with goals and no KR were not included, these studies did not test the possibility that KR may be a necessary condition for goals to affect performance. These studies were conduct in late 1960s, and in later Power's study(1973), the linkage between goal setting and feedback within control systems was suggested. According to Powers, both goals and task feedback are compared by the mechanism labeled “comparator”. If a sufficiently large discrepancy of error exists, some form of remedial action is triggered. The dependence of the comparator on both goals and feedback is quite consistent with recent goal-setting research demonstrating that neither goals nor feedback, by themselves, significantly affect performance, but the feedback will definitely affect goal-setting or mediate the goal setting for reducing the discrepancy and the error-eliminating response will be initiated. Taking "to do a programming homework" as an example, the student may set up a goal as "spend 1 hour to complete the homework alone", but after half an hour, he notices that there are always errors reported and debugging takes much more time than his prior prediction, so he might want to change the goal into either spending one more hour in this homework or asking for help from peers or TA. Here, error reports from the compiler is the feedback or called knowledge of results that is interpreted to the student, which actually mediate his goal-setting.

Goal setting and feedback are widely believed to affect performance positively through enhancing the information and motivation necessary for work performance (Earley, Northcraft, Lee, & Lituchy, 1990).The performance benefit that goals produce is argued to stem from influencing the effort, persistence, and strategic direction of individual performance ( Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981).

Individual difference in laboratory study had also been looked into in Locke's study in early 1980s, and several variables have been examined: demographic variable (education, sex, age, race, job tenure) and personality variable (need for achievement, need for independence, self-esteem, internal vs. external control), but little significant results are found due to the inconsistent individual differences in the laboratory study (Locke et al. 1981).

==Goal setting’s effect on student’s performance with classroom setting==

'''Student Expectations About Affective Correlates of Academic'''

Performance often improves when difficult and specific goals have been set, which does not mean that goal setting techniques will automatically enhance actual school performance, of course, because that will also depend on other factors. One such factor is student perceptions of the consequences of goal setting, especially perception of affective consequences, which highly relates to the subjective estimation of the goal difficulty. To the extent that the affective consequences of goal setting are perceived as negative, it should be more difficult to persuade students to commit themselves to difficult and specific goals, no matter what the actual consequences are and even if other expected consequences are favorable. As a conclusion, students' expectations of affective consequences should support rather than disrupt beneficial effects of goal setting on performance, and examining the extent to which students have negative affective expectations about goal setting is critical(Wicker, Brown, Hagen, Boring, Wiehe, 1991).

==Some main research findings in goal setting ==
*specific and challenging goals lead to higher performance than easy goals, "do your best" goals, or no goals (Locke et al. 1981);
*A harder task led to better weight-lifting performance than an easier task when subjects were deceived as to the actual weights (Ness & Patton,1979);
*Goals affect performance by directing attention, mobilizing effort, increasing persistence, and motivating strategy development (Locke et al. 1981);
*Goal setting is most likely to improve task performance when:
**The goals are specific and sufficiently challenging;
**The subjects have sufficient ability or the ability differences are controlled;
**Feedback is provided to show progress in relation to the goal, rewards such as money are given for goal attainment;
**The experimenter or manager is supportive, and assigned goals are accepted by the individual (Locke et al. 1981).
*No reliable individual differences have emerged in goal-setting studies, probably because the goals were typically assigned rather than self-set (Locke et al. 1981);
*Error could be reduced by changing initial goals (Campion & Lord, 1982);
*Multiple goals: several tasks may be effectively coordinated through the use of multiple, goal dependent feedback loops(Campion & Lord, 1982);
*The choice of initial goals: in many situation, the choice of initial goals is an important determinant of performance, especially when task feedback is slow or when tasks are not repetitive (Campion & Lord, 1982);
*Goals may be set close to levels of past performance on familiar tasks (Campion & Lord, 1982);
*Initial goals may be derived from higher level objectives which are hierarchically organized (Campion & Lord, 1982);
*Initial goals may be externally influenced by social processed such as social comparison of modeling (Campion & Lord, 1982).

==References==

#Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969-1980. Edwin A. Locke, Lise M. Saari, Karyll N. ShawGary P. Latham
#A Control Systems Conceptualization of the Goal-Setting and Changing Process. (1982). Michael A. Campion, Robert G. Lord.
#Goal Commitment and the Goal-Setting Process: Problems, Prospects, and Proposals for Future Research. (1987).John R. Hollenbeck and Howard J. Klein.
#Goal Setting, Achievement Orientation, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meditational Analysis. (1994). Andrew J. Elliot, Judith M. Harackiewicz.
#Achievement Goals in the Classroom: Students' Learning Strategies and Motivation Processes. (1988).Carole Ames, Jennifer Archer.
#Student Expectations about Affective Correlates of Academic Goal Setting. (1991). Frank W. Wicker, Gall Brown, Anastasia S. Hagen, Wayne Boring, James A. Wiehe.

Goal setting and its constructs

2009-04-15T03:05:44Z

Clare.xie: /* Goal commitment */

"Goal" has been defined simply as "something that the person wants to achieve" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 2). Goal setting theory assumes that human action is directed by conscious goals and intentions" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 4). "Goal setting" refers to a specific outcome that an individual is striving to achieve(Dweck, 1992).

==Goal setting==
Goal setting is a process that involves setting up specific objects, measurements and strategy to achieve the goal, which also includes the strategy modification in terms of the feedback or error made.According to earlier research, the two major attributes of goal setting are Content and Intensity(Rand, 1967).

'''Content of a goal''' is mainly talking about "WHAT" :the object and final results that people want to achieve, which contains several aspects:1. Goal specificity: how specific and clear the goal is: abstract goal, such as "find a good job", or really clarified goal, such as:"I want to be an interface designer in Microsoft who can be involved in improving 'Microsoft office' series"; 2. Task difficulty: how difficult to reach the goal, which actually includes cognitive process of self-esteem. It's a subjective comparing between the degree of proficiency or level of performance people are seeking and the level of current capability or potential capability that people have, which also involves the estimation of the effort that will take. More investment of effort are predicted, more difficult the goal that people would regard as. There was some arguments about the notion of task difficulty and goal difficulty. According to Locke & Latham's paper in 1981, the terms task difficulty and goal difficulty were often used interchangeably, but normally, goal refers to a final goal in terms of an event, while the tasks included could be sub-goals under the final one or the steps toward the termination of the whole process.

The evidence of a positive, linear relation between goal difficulty and task performance (assuming sufficient ability) was firstly found by Locke (1968), and later studies had supported this finding (Locke & Latham,1981), which says harder goals led to better performance than easy goals under the assumption that people have sufficient ability and further have accurate estimate of the ability.

Recent research in self-efficacy found out that students with over-confidence, who over-estimate their ability in terms of their goal setting, would have worse grades comparing to others, which also hurts their post-efficacy. But researcher also found that the outcome could be even worse for the student with self-humiliation. So it might imply that underestimation of the goal difficulty and over-estimation of self-capability may generate better outcome than overestimation of goal difficulty and underestimation of the ability.

Specific hard goals versus "do best" goals or no goals: Previous research found that specific, challenging (difficult) goals elicit higher effort investment and output than vague goals such as "do your best" (Locke, 1968). Subsequent research has strongly supported these results, although in a number of studies, no distinction was made between groups told to do their best and those assigned no specific goals(Locke & Latham,1981).

There are other aspects about multiple goals are goal complexity and goal conflict: Goal Complexity refers to the number and interrelation of the results aimed for, while Goal Conflict refers to the degree to which attaining one goal negates or subverts attaining another.

And '''Intensity of a goal''' is about "HOW", pertaining to the process of setting the goal or of determining how to reach it, which would be measured by such factors as the scope of the cognitive process, the degree of effort required, the importance of the goal, and the context in which it is set(Locke & Latham,1981). Goal intensity is positively related to goal content. more complex goal-setting requires more intense cognitive process to figure out, also may take longer time and more iteration in terms of initial goal modification and attaining.

According to Locke et al's paper in 1981, the interest of researchers in goal setting at that time had two sources, one academic and the other organizational. The academic source extends back in time from Ryan (1970) and G. Miller, Galanter, and Pribrani (1960), through Lewin, to the Wurzburg School and the associated concepts of intention, task, set, and level of aspiration (see Ryan, 1970, for a summary). The organizational source is traced from Management by Objectives programs, later widely used in industry (Odiorne, 1978).

Nowadays, Goal setting is an important componentof social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) in terms of its effect on task performance, while in the industry, lots of online tutorial, management tool and theory are produced based on goal setting components and aim at improving employee's working performance.

==Goal commitment==

Goal commitment is also an important component in goal setting theory. According to Locke et al (1981), it refers to the determination to try for a goal. Commitment implies the extension of effort,toward the accomplishment of an original goal and emphasizes an unwillingness to abandon or to lower the original goal(Campion & Lord, 1982). Goal commitment is basically about how much people would like to stick onto the goal: more important the goal is, more commitment to the goal and more persistent that people will be in attaining the goal.

Also self-efficacy, pre-investment (how much effort or resource have already been put into achieving the goal)and social environment may also influence the developing of goal commitment. In addition, the emphasis is on commitment to difficult or challenging goals instead of comparably easy or simple goals.

==Feedback==

Feedback was also called knowledge of result [KR] in Locke's study (Locke et al.), and attempts were made to separate the effects of feedback (i.e., knowledge of results [KR]) from the effects of goal setting to determine whether KR directly influenced performance or whether its effects were mediated by goal-setting activity (Locke, 1967; Locke & Bryan, 1968, 1969a, 1969b; Locke, Cartledge, & Koeppel, 1968). In the most carefully controlled of these previous studies, all subjects with specific goals also received knowledge of their performance in relation to their goals; individuals in the KR conditions received knowledge of their actual scores presented in such a way as to preclude their use in setting goals. Such knowledge of scores did not lead to better performance than no knowledge of scores. The evidence from these and related studies indicated that knowledge of scores was not sufficient to improve task performance. However, since groups with goals and no KR were not included, these studies did not test the possibility that KR may be a necessary condition for goals to affect performance. These studies were conduct in late 1960s, and in later Power's study(1973), the linkage between goal setting and feedback within control systems was suggested. According to Powers, both goals and task feedback are compared by the mechanism labeled “comparator”. If a sufficiently large discrepancy of error exists, some form of remedial action is triggered. The dependence of the comparator on both goals and feedback is quite consistent with recent goal-setting research demonstrating that neither goals nor feedback, by themselves, significantly affect performance, but the feedback will definitely affect goal-setting or mediate the goal setting for reducing the discrepancy and the error-eliminating response will be initiated. Taking "to do a programming homework" as an example, the student may set up a goal as "spend 1 hour to complete the homework alone", but after half an hour, he notices that there are always errors reported and debugging takes much more time than his prior prediction, so he might want to change the goal into either spending one more hour in this homework or asking for help from peers or TA. Here, error reports from the compiler is the feedback or called knowledge of results that is interpreted to the student, which actually mediate his goal-setting.

Goal setting and feedback are widely believed to affect performance positively through enhancing the information and motivation necessary for work performance (Earley, Northcraft, Lee, & Lituchy, 1990).The performance benefit that goals produce is argued to stem from influencing the effort, persistence, and strategic direction of individual performance ( Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981).

Individual difference in laboratory study had also been looked into in Locke's study in early 1980s, and several variables have been examined: demographic variable (education, sex, age, race, job tenure) and personality variable (need for achievement, need for independence, self-esteem, internal vs. external control), but little significant results are found due to the inconsistent individual differences in the laboratory study (Locke et al. 1981).

==Goal setting’s effect on student’s performance with classroom setting==

'''Student Expectations About Affective Correlates of Academic'''

Performance often improves when difficult and specific goals have been set, which does not mean that goal setting techniques will automatically enhance actual school performance, of course, because that will also depend on other factors. One such factor is student perceptions of the consequences of goal setting, especially perception of affective consequences, which highly relates to the subjective estimation of the goal difficulty. To the extent that the affective consequences of goal setting are perceived as negative, it should be more difficult to persuade students to commit themselves to difficult and specific goals, no matter what the actual consequences are and even if other expected consequences are favorable. As a conclusion, students' expectations of affective consequences should support rather than disrupt beneficial effects of goal setting on performance, and examining the extent to which students have negative affective expectations about goal setting is critical(Wicker, Brown, Hagen, Boring, Wiehe, 1991).

==Some main research findings in goal setting ==
*specific and challenging goals lead to higher performance than easy goals, "do your best" goals, or no goals (Locke et al. 1981);
*A harder task led to better weight-lifting performance than an easier task when subjects were deceived as to the actual weights (Ness & Patton,1979);
*Goals affect performance by directing attention, mobilizing effort, increasing persistence, and motivating strategy development (Locke et al. 1981);
*Goal setting is most likely to improve task performance when:
**The goals are specific and sufficiently challenging;
**The subjects have sufficient ability or the ability differences are controlled;
**Feedback is provided to show progress in relation to the goal, rewards such as money are given for goal attainment;
**The experimenter or manager is supportive, and assigned goals are accepted by the individual (Locke et al. 1981).
*No reliable individual differences have emerged in goal-setting studies, probably because the goals were typically assigned rather than self-set (Locke et al. 1981);
*Error could be reduced by changing initial goals (Campion & Lord, 1982);
*Multiple goals: several tasks may be effectively coordinated through the use of multiple, goal dependent feedback loops(Campion & Lord, 1982);
*The choice of initial goals: in many situation, the choice of initial goals is an important determinant of performance, especially when task feedback is slow or when tasks are not repetitive (Campion & Lord, 1982);
*Goals may be set close to levels of past performance on familiar tasks (Campion & Lord, 1982);
*Initial goals may be derived from higher level objectives which are hierarchically organized (Campion & Lord, 1982);
*Initial goals may be externally influenced by social processed such as social comparison of modeling (Campion & Lord, 1982).

==References==

#Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969-1980. Edwin A. Locke, Lise M. Saari, Karyll N. ShawGary P. Latham
#A Control Systems Conceptualization of the Goal-Setting and Changing Process. (1982). Michael A. Campion, Robert G. Lord.
#Goal Commitment and the Goal-Setting Process: Problems, Prospects, and Proposals for Future Research. (1987).John R. Hollenbeck and Howard J. Klein.
#Goal Setting, Achievement Orientation, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meditational Analysis. (1994). Andrew J. Elliot, Judith M. Harackiewicz.
#Achievement Goals in the Classroom: Students' Learning Strategies and Motivation Processes. (1988).Carole Ames, Jennifer Archer.
#Student Expectations about Affective Correlates of Academic Goal Setting. (1991). Frank W. Wicker, Gall Brown, Anastasia S. Hagen, Wayne Boring, James A. Wiehe.

Goal setting and its constructs

2009-04-15T03:03:54Z

Clare.xie: /* Goal setting */

"Goal" has been defined simply as "something that the person wants to achieve" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 2). Goal setting theory assumes that human action is directed by conscious goals and intentions" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 4). "Goal setting" refers to a specific outcome that an individual is striving to achieve(Dweck, 1992).

==Goal setting==
Goal setting is a process that involves setting up specific objects, measurements and strategy to achieve the goal, which also includes the strategy modification in terms of the feedback or error made.According to earlier research, the two major attributes of goal setting are Content and Intensity(Rand, 1967).

'''Content of a goal''' is mainly talking about "WHAT" :the object and final results that people want to achieve, which contains several aspects:1. Goal specificity: how specific and clear the goal is: abstract goal, such as "find a good job", or really clarified goal, such as:"I want to be an interface designer in Microsoft who can be involved in improving 'Microsoft office' series"; 2. Task difficulty: how difficult to reach the goal, which actually includes cognitive process of self-esteem. It's a subjective comparing between the degree of proficiency or level of performance people are seeking and the level of current capability or potential capability that people have, which also involves the estimation of the effort that will take. More investment of effort are predicted, more difficult the goal that people would regard as. There was some arguments about the notion of task difficulty and goal difficulty. According to Locke & Latham's paper in 1981, the terms task difficulty and goal difficulty were often used interchangeably, but normally, goal refers to a final goal in terms of an event, while the tasks included could be sub-goals under the final one or the steps toward the termination of the whole process.

The evidence of a positive, linear relation between goal difficulty and task performance (assuming sufficient ability) was firstly found by Locke (1968), and later studies had supported this finding (Locke & Latham,1981), which says harder goals led to better performance than easy goals under the assumption that people have sufficient ability and further have accurate estimate of the ability.

Recent research in self-efficacy found out that students with over-confidence, who over-estimate their ability in terms of their goal setting, would have worse grades comparing to others, which also hurts their post-efficacy. But researcher also found that the outcome could be even worse for the student with self-humiliation. So it might imply that underestimation of the goal difficulty and over-estimation of self-capability may generate better outcome than overestimation of goal difficulty and underestimation of the ability.

Specific hard goals versus "do best" goals or no goals: Previous research found that specific, challenging (difficult) goals elicit higher effort investment and output than vague goals such as "do your best" (Locke, 1968). Subsequent research has strongly supported these results, although in a number of studies, no distinction was made between groups told to do their best and those assigned no specific goals(Locke & Latham,1981).

There are other aspects about multiple goals are goal complexity and goal conflict: Goal Complexity refers to the number and interrelation of the results aimed for, while Goal Conflict refers to the degree to which attaining one goal negates or subverts attaining another.

And '''Intensity of a goal''' is about "HOW", pertaining to the process of setting the goal or of determining how to reach it, which would be measured by such factors as the scope of the cognitive process, the degree of effort required, the importance of the goal, and the context in which it is set(Locke & Latham,1981). Goal intensity is positively related to goal content. more complex goal-setting requires more intense cognitive process to figure out, also may take longer time and more iteration in terms of initial goal modification and attaining.

According to Locke et al's paper in 1981, the interest of researchers in goal setting at that time had two sources, one academic and the other organizational. The academic source extends back in time from Ryan (1970) and G. Miller, Galanter, and Pribrani (1960), through Lewin, to the Wurzburg School and the associated concepts of intention, task, set, and level of aspiration (see Ryan, 1970, for a summary). The organizational source is traced from Management by Objectives programs, later widely used in industry (Odiorne, 1978).

Nowadays, Goal setting is an important componentof social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) in terms of its effect on task performance, while in the industry, lots of online tutorial, management tool and theory are produced based on goal setting components and aim at improving employee's working performance.

==Goal commitment==

Goal commitment is also an important component in goal setting theory. According to Locke et al (1981), it refers to the determination to try for a goal. Commitment implies the extension of effort,toward the accomplishment of an original goal and emphasizes an unwillingness to abandon or to lower the original goal(Campion & Lord, 1982). Goal commitment is basically about how much people would like to stick onto the goal: more important the goal is, more commitment to the goal. Also self-efficacy, pre-investment (how much effort or resource have already been put into achieving the goal)and social environment may also influence the developing of goal commitment. In addition, the emphasis is on commitment to difficult or challenging goals instead of comparably easy or simple goals.

==Feedback==

Feedback was also called knowledge of result [KR] in Locke's study (Locke et al.), and attempts were made to separate the effects of feedback (i.e., knowledge of results [KR]) from the effects of goal setting to determine whether KR directly influenced performance or whether its effects were mediated by goal-setting activity (Locke, 1967; Locke & Bryan, 1968, 1969a, 1969b; Locke, Cartledge, & Koeppel, 1968). In the most carefully controlled of these previous studies, all subjects with specific goals also received knowledge of their performance in relation to their goals; individuals in the KR conditions received knowledge of their actual scores presented in such a way as to preclude their use in setting goals. Such knowledge of scores did not lead to better performance than no knowledge of scores. The evidence from these and related studies indicated that knowledge of scores was not sufficient to improve task performance. However, since groups with goals and no KR were not included, these studies did not test the possibility that KR may be a necessary condition for goals to affect performance. These studies were conduct in late 1960s, and in later Power's study(1973), the linkage between goal setting and feedback within control systems was suggested. According to Powers, both goals and task feedback are compared by the mechanism labeled “comparator”. If a sufficiently large discrepancy of error exists, some form of remedial action is triggered. The dependence of the comparator on both goals and feedback is quite consistent with recent goal-setting research demonstrating that neither goals nor feedback, by themselves, significantly affect performance, but the feedback will definitely affect goal-setting or mediate the goal setting for reducing the discrepancy and the error-eliminating response will be initiated. Taking "to do a programming homework" as an example, the student may set up a goal as "spend 1 hour to complete the homework alone", but after half an hour, he notices that there are always errors reported and debugging takes much more time than his prior prediction, so he might want to change the goal into either spending one more hour in this homework or asking for help from peers or TA. Here, error reports from the compiler is the feedback or called knowledge of results that is interpreted to the student, which actually mediate his goal-setting.

Goal setting and feedback are widely believed to affect performance positively through enhancing the information and motivation necessary for work performance (Earley, Northcraft, Lee, & Lituchy, 1990).The performance benefit that goals produce is argued to stem from influencing the effort, persistence, and strategic direction of individual performance ( Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981).

Individual difference in laboratory study had also been looked into in Locke's study in early 1980s, and several variables have been examined: demographic variable (education, sex, age, race, job tenure) and personality variable (need for achievement, need for independence, self-esteem, internal vs. external control), but little significant results are found due to the inconsistent individual differences in the laboratory study (Locke et al. 1981).

==Goal setting’s effect on student’s performance with classroom setting==

'''Student Expectations About Affective Correlates of Academic'''

Performance often improves when difficult and specific goals have been set, which does not mean that goal setting techniques will automatically enhance actual school performance, of course, because that will also depend on other factors. One such factor is student perceptions of the consequences of goal setting, especially perception of affective consequences, which highly relates to the subjective estimation of the goal difficulty. To the extent that the affective consequences of goal setting are perceived as negative, it should be more difficult to persuade students to commit themselves to difficult and specific goals, no matter what the actual consequences are and even if other expected consequences are favorable. As a conclusion, students' expectations of affective consequences should support rather than disrupt beneficial effects of goal setting on performance, and examining the extent to which students have negative affective expectations about goal setting is critical(Wicker, Brown, Hagen, Boring, Wiehe, 1991).

==Some main research findings in goal setting ==
*specific and challenging goals lead to higher performance than easy goals, "do your best" goals, or no goals (Locke et al. 1981);
*A harder task led to better weight-lifting performance than an easier task when subjects were deceived as to the actual weights (Ness & Patton,1979);
*Goals affect performance by directing attention, mobilizing effort, increasing persistence, and motivating strategy development (Locke et al. 1981);
*Goal setting is most likely to improve task performance when:
**The goals are specific and sufficiently challenging;
**The subjects have sufficient ability or the ability differences are controlled;
**Feedback is provided to show progress in relation to the goal, rewards such as money are given for goal attainment;
**The experimenter or manager is supportive, and assigned goals are accepted by the individual (Locke et al. 1981).
*No reliable individual differences have emerged in goal-setting studies, probably because the goals were typically assigned rather than self-set (Locke et al. 1981);
*Error could be reduced by changing initial goals (Campion & Lord, 1982);
*Multiple goals: several tasks may be effectively coordinated through the use of multiple, goal dependent feedback loops(Campion & Lord, 1982);
*The choice of initial goals: in many situation, the choice of initial goals is an important determinant of performance, especially when task feedback is slow or when tasks are not repetitive (Campion & Lord, 1982);
*Goals may be set close to levels of past performance on familiar tasks (Campion & Lord, 1982);
*Initial goals may be derived from higher level objectives which are hierarchically organized (Campion & Lord, 1982);
*Initial goals may be externally influenced by social processed such as social comparison of modeling (Campion & Lord, 1982).

==References==

#Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969-1980. Edwin A. Locke, Lise M. Saari, Karyll N. ShawGary P. Latham
#A Control Systems Conceptualization of the Goal-Setting and Changing Process. (1982). Michael A. Campion, Robert G. Lord.
#Goal Commitment and the Goal-Setting Process: Problems, Prospects, and Proposals for Future Research. (1987).John R. Hollenbeck and Howard J. Klein.
#Goal Setting, Achievement Orientation, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meditational Analysis. (1994). Andrew J. Elliot, Judith M. Harackiewicz.
#Achievement Goals in the Classroom: Students' Learning Strategies and Motivation Processes. (1988).Carole Ames, Jennifer Archer.
#Student Expectations about Affective Correlates of Academic Goal Setting. (1991). Frank W. Wicker, Gall Brown, Anastasia S. Hagen, Wayne Boring, James A. Wiehe.

Goal setting and its constructs

2009-04-15T02:55:18Z

Clare.xie: /* Goal setting */

"Goal" has been defined simply as "something that the person wants to achieve" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 2). Goal setting theory assumes that human action is directed by conscious goals and intentions" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 4). "Goal setting" refers to a specific outcome that an individual is striving to achieve(Dweck, 1992).

==Goal setting==
Goal setting is a process that involves setting up specific objects, measurements and strategy to achieve the goal, which also includes the strategy modification in terms of the feedback or error made.According to earlier research, the two major attributes of goal setting are Content and Intensity(Rand, 1967).

'''Content of a goal''' is mainly talking about "WHAT" :the object and final results that people want to achieve, which contains several aspects:1. Goal specificity: how specific and clear the goal is: abstract goal, such as "find a good job", or really clarified goal, such as:"I want to be an interface designer in Microsoft who can be involved in improving 'Microsoft office' series"; 2. Task difficulty: how difficult to reach the goal, which actually includes cognitive process of self-esteem. It's a subjective comparing between the degree of proficiency or level of performance people are seeking and the level of current capability or potential capability that people have, which also involves the estimation of the effort that will take. More investment of effort are predicted, more difficult the goal that people would regard as. There was some arguments about the notion of task difficulty and goal difficulty. According to Locke & Latham's paper in 1981, the terms task difficulty and goal difficulty were often used interchangeably, but normally, goal refers to a final goal in terms of an event, while the tasks included could be sub-goals under the final one or the steps toward the termination of the whole process.

The evidence of a positive, linear relation between goal difficulty and task performance (assuming sufficient ability) was firstly found by Locke (1968), and later studies had supported this finding (Locke & Latham,1981), which says harder goals led to better performance than easy goals under the assumption that people have sufficient ability and further have accurate estimate of the ability.

Recent research in self-efficacy found out that students with over-confidence, who over-estimate their ability in terms of their goal setting, would have worse grades comparing to others, which also hurts their post-efficacy. But researcher also found that the outcome could be even worse for the student with self-humiliation. So it might imply that underestimation of the goal difficulty and over-estimation of self-capability may generate better outcome than overestimation of goal difficulty and underestimation of the ability.

Specific hard goals versus "do best" goals or no goals: Previous research found that specific, challenging (difficult) goals elicit higher effort investment and output than vague goals such as "do your best" (Locke, 1968). Subsequent research has strongly supported these results, although in a number of studies, no distinction was made between groups told to do their best and those assigned no specific goals(Locke & Latham,1981).

There are other aspects about multiple goals are goal complexity and goal conflict: Goal Complexity refers to the number and interrelation of the results aimed for, while Goal Conflict refers to the degree to which attaining one goal negates or subverts attaining another.

And '''Intensity of a goal''' is about "HOW", pertaining to the process of setting the goal or of determining how to reach it, which would be measured by such factors as the scope of the cognitive process, the degree of effort required, the importance of the goal, and the context in which it is set(Locke & Latham,1981). Goal intensity is positively related to goal content. For example, a more intense psychological process is needed for setting complex goals and to figure out how to attain them than the process needed to set and attain simple goals.

According to Locke et al's paper in 1981, the concept of goal setting fell within the broad domain of cognitive psychology and is consistent with cognitive behavior modification. The interest of researchers in goal setting at that time had two sources, one academic and the other organizational. The academic source extends back in time from Ryan (1970) and G. Miller, Galanter, and Pribrani (1960), through Lewin, to the Wurzburg School and the associated concepts of intention, task, set, and level of aspiration (see Ryan, 1970, for a summary). The organizational source is traced from Management by Objectives programs, later widely used in industry (see Odiorne, 1978, for a summary). Nowadays, Goal setting is an important componentof social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) in terms of its effect on task performance, while in the industry, lots of online tutorial, management tool and theory are produced based on goal setting components and aim at improving employee's working performance.

==Goal commitment==

Goal commitment is also an important component in goal setting theory. According to Locke et al (1981), it refers to the determination to try for a goal. Commitment implies the extension of effort,toward the accomplishment of an original goal and emphasizes an unwillingness to abandon or to lower the original goal(Campion & Lord, 1982). Goal commitment is basically about how much people would like to stick onto the goal: more important the goal is, more commitment to the goal. Also self-efficacy, pre-investment (how much effort or resource have already been put into achieving the goal)and social environment may also influence the developing of goal commitment. In addition, the emphasis is on commitment to difficult or challenging goals instead of comparably easy or simple goals.

==Feedback==

Feedback was also called knowledge of result [KR] in Locke's study (Locke et al.), and attempts were made to separate the effects of feedback (i.e., knowledge of results [KR]) from the effects of goal setting to determine whether KR directly influenced performance or whether its effects were mediated by goal-setting activity (Locke, 1967; Locke & Bryan, 1968, 1969a, 1969b; Locke, Cartledge, & Koeppel, 1968). In the most carefully controlled of these previous studies, all subjects with specific goals also received knowledge of their performance in relation to their goals; individuals in the KR conditions received knowledge of their actual scores presented in such a way as to preclude their use in setting goals. Such knowledge of scores did not lead to better performance than no knowledge of scores. The evidence from these and related studies indicated that knowledge of scores was not sufficient to improve task performance. However, since groups with goals and no KR were not included, these studies did not test the possibility that KR may be a necessary condition for goals to affect performance. These studies were conduct in late 1960s, and in later Power's study(1973), the linkage between goal setting and feedback within control systems was suggested. According to Powers, both goals and task feedback are compared by the mechanism labeled “comparator”. If a sufficiently large discrepancy of error exists, some form of remedial action is triggered. The dependence of the comparator on both goals and feedback is quite consistent with recent goal-setting research demonstrating that neither goals nor feedback, by themselves, significantly affect performance, but the feedback will definitely affect goal-setting or mediate the goal setting for reducing the discrepancy and the error-eliminating response will be initiated. Taking "to do a programming homework" as an example, the student may set up a goal as "spend 1 hour to complete the homework alone", but after half an hour, he notices that there are always errors reported and debugging takes much more time than his prior prediction, so he might want to change the goal into either spending one more hour in this homework or asking for help from peers or TA. Here, error reports from the compiler is the feedback or called knowledge of results that is interpreted to the student, which actually mediate his goal-setting.

Goal setting and feedback are widely believed to affect performance positively through enhancing the information and motivation necessary for work performance (Earley, Northcraft, Lee, & Lituchy, 1990).The performance benefit that goals produce is argued to stem from influencing the effort, persistence, and strategic direction of individual performance ( Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981).

Individual difference in laboratory study had also been looked into in Locke's study in early 1980s, and several variables have been examined: demographic variable (education, sex, age, race, job tenure) and personality variable (need for achievement, need for independence, self-esteem, internal vs. external control), but little significant results are found due to the inconsistent individual differences in the laboratory study (Locke et al. 1981).

==Goal setting’s effect on student’s performance with classroom setting==

'''Student Expectations About Affective Correlates of Academic'''

Performance often improves when difficult and specific goals have been set, which does not mean that goal setting techniques will automatically enhance actual school performance, of course, because that will also depend on other factors. One such factor is student perceptions of the consequences of goal setting, especially perception of affective consequences, which highly relates to the subjective estimation of the goal difficulty. To the extent that the affective consequences of goal setting are perceived as negative, it should be more difficult to persuade students to commit themselves to difficult and specific goals, no matter what the actual consequences are and even if other expected consequences are favorable. As a conclusion, students' expectations of affective consequences should support rather than disrupt beneficial effects of goal setting on performance, and examining the extent to which students have negative affective expectations about goal setting is critical(Wicker, Brown, Hagen, Boring, Wiehe, 1991).

==Some main research findings in goal setting ==
*specific and challenging goals lead to higher performance than easy goals, "do your best" goals, or no goals (Locke et al. 1981);
*A harder task led to better weight-lifting performance than an easier task when subjects were deceived as to the actual weights (Ness & Patton,1979);
*Goals affect performance by directing attention, mobilizing effort, increasing persistence, and motivating strategy development (Locke et al. 1981);
*Goal setting is most likely to improve task performance when:
**The goals are specific and sufficiently challenging;
**The subjects have sufficient ability or the ability differences are controlled;
**Feedback is provided to show progress in relation to the goal, rewards such as money are given for goal attainment;
**The experimenter or manager is supportive, and assigned goals are accepted by the individual (Locke et al. 1981).
*No reliable individual differences have emerged in goal-setting studies, probably because the goals were typically assigned rather than self-set (Locke et al. 1981);
*Error could be reduced by changing initial goals (Campion & Lord, 1982);
*Multiple goals: several tasks may be effectively coordinated through the use of multiple, goal dependent feedback loops(Campion & Lord, 1982);
*The choice of initial goals: in many situation, the choice of initial goals is an important determinant of performance, especially when task feedback is slow or when tasks are not repetitive (Campion & Lord, 1982);
*Goals may be set close to levels of past performance on familiar tasks (Campion & Lord, 1982);
*Initial goals may be derived from higher level objectives which are hierarchically organized (Campion & Lord, 1982);
*Initial goals may be externally influenced by social processed such as social comparison of modeling (Campion & Lord, 1982).

==References==

#Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969-1980. Edwin A. Locke, Lise M. Saari, Karyll N. ShawGary P. Latham
#A Control Systems Conceptualization of the Goal-Setting and Changing Process. (1982). Michael A. Campion, Robert G. Lord.
#Goal Commitment and the Goal-Setting Process: Problems, Prospects, and Proposals for Future Research. (1987).John R. Hollenbeck and Howard J. Klein.
#Goal Setting, Achievement Orientation, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meditational Analysis. (1994). Andrew J. Elliot, Judith M. Harackiewicz.
#Achievement Goals in the Classroom: Students' Learning Strategies and Motivation Processes. (1988).Carole Ames, Jennifer Archer.
#Student Expectations about Affective Correlates of Academic Goal Setting. (1991). Frank W. Wicker, Gall Brown, Anastasia S. Hagen, Wayne Boring, James A. Wiehe.

Re-do work

2009-04-15T02:53:02Z

Clare.xie: Re-do work moved to Goal setting and its constructs

#REDIRECT [[Goal setting and its constructs]]

Goal setting and its constructs

2009-04-15T02:53:02Z

Clare.xie: Re-do work moved to Goal setting and its constructs

"Goal" has been defined simply as "something that the person wants to achieve" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 2). Goal setting theory assumes that human action is directed by conscious goals and intentions" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 4). "Goal setting" refers to a specific outcome that an individual is striving to achieve(Dweck, 1992).

==Goal setting==
Goal setting is a process that involves setting up specific objects, measurements and strategy to achieve the goal, which also includes the strategy modification in terms of the feedback or error made.According to earlier research, the two major attributes of goal setting are Content and Intensity(Rand, 1967).

'''Content of a goal''' is mainly talking about "WHAT" :the object and final results that people want to achieve, which contains several aspects:1. Goal specificity: how specific and clear the goal is: abstract goal, such as "find a good job", or really clarified goal, such as:"I want to be an interface designer in Microsoft who can be involved in improving 'Microsoft office' series"; 2. Task difficulty: how difficult to reach the goal, which actually includes cognitive process of self-esteem. It's a subjective comparing between the degree of proficiency or level of performance people are seeking and the level of current capability or potential capability that people have, which also involves the estimation of the effort that will take. More investment of effort are predicted, more difficult the goal that people would regard as. There was some arguments about the notion of task difficulty and goal difficulty. According to Locke & Latham's paper in 1981, the terms task difficulty and goal difficulty were often used interchangeably, but normally, goal refers to a final goal in terms of an event, while the tasks included could be sub-goals under the final one or the steps toward the termination of the whole process.

The evidence of a positive, linear relation between goal difficulty and task performance (assuming sufficient ability) was firstly found by Locke (1968), and later studies had supported this finding (Locke & Latham,1981), which says harder goals led to better performance than easy goals under the assumption that people have sufficient ability and further have accurate estimate of the ability. Current research in efficacy found out that students with over-confidence, who over-estimate their ability in terms of their goal setting, would have worse grades comparing to others, which also hurts their post-efficacy. But researcher also found that the outcome could be even worse for the student with self-humiliation. So it might imply that underestimation of the goal difficulty and over-estimation of self-capability may generate better outcome than overestimation of goal difficulty and underestimation of the ability.

Specific hard goals versus "do best" goals or no goals: Previous research found that specific, challenging (difficult) goals elicit higher effort investment and output than vague goals such as "do your best" (Locke, 1968). Subsequent research has strongly supported these results, although in a number of studies, no distinction was made between groups told to do their best and those assigned no specific goals(Locke & Latham,1981).

There are other aspects about multiple goals are goal complexity and goal conflict: Goal Complexity refers to the number and interrelation of the results aimed for, while Goal Conflict refers to the degree to which attaining one goal negates or subverts attaining another.

And '''Intensity of a goal''' is about "HOW", pertaining to the process of setting the goal or of determining how to reach it, which would be measured by such factors as the scope of the cognitive process, the degree of effort required, the importance of the goal, and the context in which it is set(Locke & Latham,1981). Goal intensity is positively related to goal content. For example, a more intense psychological process is needed for setting complex goals and to figure out how to attain them than the process needed to set and attain simple goals.

According to Locke et al's paper in 1981, the concept of goal setting fell within the broad domain of cognitive psychology and is consistent with cognitive behavior modification. The interest of researchers in goal setting at that time had two sources, one academic and the other organizational. The academic source extends back in time from Ryan (1970) and G. Miller, Galanter, and Pribrani (1960), through Lewin, to the Wurzburg School and the associated concepts of intention, task, set, and level of aspiration (see Ryan, 1970, for a summary). The organizational source is traced from Management by Objectives programs, later widely used in industry (see Odiorne, 1978, for a summary). Nowadays, Goal setting is an important componentof social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) in terms of its effect on task performance, while in the industry, lots of online tutorial, management tool and theory are produced based on goal setting components and aim at improving employee's working performance.

==Goal commitment==

Goal commitment is also an important component in goal setting theory. According to Locke et al (1981), it refers to the determination to try for a goal. Commitment implies the extension of effort,toward the accomplishment of an original goal and emphasizes an unwillingness to abandon or to lower the original goal(Campion & Lord, 1982). Goal commitment is basically about how much people would like to stick onto the goal: more important the goal is, more commitment to the goal. Also self-efficacy, pre-investment (how much effort or resource have already been put into achieving the goal)and social environment may also influence the developing of goal commitment. In addition, the emphasis is on commitment to difficult or challenging goals instead of comparably easy or simple goals.

==Feedback==

Feedback was also called knowledge of result [KR] in Locke's study (Locke et al.), and attempts were made to separate the effects of feedback (i.e., knowledge of results [KR]) from the effects of goal setting to determine whether KR directly influenced performance or whether its effects were mediated by goal-setting activity (Locke, 1967; Locke & Bryan, 1968, 1969a, 1969b; Locke, Cartledge, & Koeppel, 1968). In the most carefully controlled of these previous studies, all subjects with specific goals also received knowledge of their performance in relation to their goals; individuals in the KR conditions received knowledge of their actual scores presented in such a way as to preclude their use in setting goals. Such knowledge of scores did not lead to better performance than no knowledge of scores. The evidence from these and related studies indicated that knowledge of scores was not sufficient to improve task performance. However, since groups with goals and no KR were not included, these studies did not test the possibility that KR may be a necessary condition for goals to affect performance. These studies were conduct in late 1960s, and in later Power's study(1973), the linkage between goal setting and feedback within control systems was suggested. According to Powers, both goals and task feedback are compared by the mechanism labeled “comparator”. If a sufficiently large discrepancy of error exists, some form of remedial action is triggered. The dependence of the comparator on both goals and feedback is quite consistent with recent goal-setting research demonstrating that neither goals nor feedback, by themselves, significantly affect performance, but the feedback will definitely affect goal-setting or mediate the goal setting for reducing the discrepancy and the error-eliminating response will be initiated. Taking "to do a programming homework" as an example, the student may set up a goal as "spend 1 hour to complete the homework alone", but after half an hour, he notices that there are always errors reported and debugging takes much more time than his prior prediction, so he might want to change the goal into either spending one more hour in this homework or asking for help from peers or TA. Here, error reports from the compiler is the feedback or called knowledge of results that is interpreted to the student, which actually mediate his goal-setting.

Goal setting and feedback are widely believed to affect performance positively through enhancing the information and motivation necessary for work performance (Earley, Northcraft, Lee, & Lituchy, 1990).The performance benefit that goals produce is argued to stem from influencing the effort, persistence, and strategic direction of individual performance ( Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981).

Individual difference in laboratory study had also been looked into in Locke's study in early 1980s, and several variables have been examined: demographic variable (education, sex, age, race, job tenure) and personality variable (need for achievement, need for independence, self-esteem, internal vs. external control), but little significant results are found due to the inconsistent individual differences in the laboratory study (Locke et al. 1981).

==Goal setting’s effect on student’s performance with classroom setting==

'''Student Expectations About Affective Correlates of Academic'''

Performance often improves when difficult and specific goals have been set, which does not mean that goal setting techniques will automatically enhance actual school performance, of course, because that will also depend on other factors. One such factor is student perceptions of the consequences of goal setting, especially perception of affective consequences, which highly relates to the subjective estimation of the goal difficulty. To the extent that the affective consequences of goal setting are perceived as negative, it should be more difficult to persuade students to commit themselves to difficult and specific goals, no matter what the actual consequences are and even if other expected consequences are favorable. As a conclusion, students' expectations of affective consequences should support rather than disrupt beneficial effects of goal setting on performance, and examining the extent to which students have negative affective expectations about goal setting is critical(Wicker, Brown, Hagen, Boring, Wiehe, 1991).

==Some main research findings in goal setting ==
*specific and challenging goals lead to higher performance than easy goals, "do your best" goals, or no goals (Locke et al. 1981);
*A harder task led to better weight-lifting performance than an easier task when subjects were deceived as to the actual weights (Ness & Patton,1979);
*Goals affect performance by directing attention, mobilizing effort, increasing persistence, and motivating strategy development (Locke et al. 1981);
*Goal setting is most likely to improve task performance when:
**The goals are specific and sufficiently challenging;
**The subjects have sufficient ability or the ability differences are controlled;
**Feedback is provided to show progress in relation to the goal, rewards such as money are given for goal attainment;
**The experimenter or manager is supportive, and assigned goals are accepted by the individual (Locke et al. 1981).
*No reliable individual differences have emerged in goal-setting studies, probably because the goals were typically assigned rather than self-set (Locke et al. 1981);
*Error could be reduced by changing initial goals (Campion & Lord, 1982);
*Multiple goals: several tasks may be effectively coordinated through the use of multiple, goal dependent feedback loops(Campion & Lord, 1982);
*The choice of initial goals: in many situation, the choice of initial goals is an important determinant of performance, especially when task feedback is slow or when tasks are not repetitive (Campion & Lord, 1982);
*Goals may be set close to levels of past performance on familiar tasks (Campion & Lord, 1982);
*Initial goals may be derived from higher level objectives which are hierarchically organized (Campion & Lord, 1982);
*Initial goals may be externally influenced by social processed such as social comparison of modeling (Campion & Lord, 1982).

==References==

#Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969-1980. Edwin A. Locke, Lise M. Saari, Karyll N. ShawGary P. Latham
#A Control Systems Conceptualization of the Goal-Setting and Changing Process. (1982). Michael A. Campion, Robert G. Lord.
#Goal Commitment and the Goal-Setting Process: Problems, Prospects, and Proposals for Future Research. (1987).John R. Hollenbeck and Howard J. Klein.
#Goal Setting, Achievement Orientation, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meditational Analysis. (1994). Andrew J. Elliot, Judith M. Harackiewicz.
#Achievement Goals in the Classroom: Students' Learning Strategies and Motivation Processes. (1988).Carole Ames, Jennifer Archer.
#Student Expectations about Affective Correlates of Academic Goal Setting. (1991). Frank W. Wicker, Gall Brown, Anastasia S. Hagen, Wayne Boring, James A. Wiehe.

Goal setting and its constructs

2009-04-15T02:50:38Z

Clare.xie: /* Goal setting */

"Goal" has been defined simply as "something that the person wants to achieve" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 2). Goal setting theory assumes that human action is directed by conscious goals and intentions" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 4). "Goal setting" refers to a specific outcome that an individual is striving to achieve(Dweck, 1992).

==Goal setting==
Goal setting is a process that involves setting up specific objects, measurements and strategy to achieve the goal, which also includes the strategy modification in terms of the feedback or error made.According to earlier research, the two major attributes of goal setting are Content and Intensity(Rand, 1967).

'''Content of a goal''' is mainly talking about "WHAT" :the object and final results that people want to achieve, which contains several aspects:1. Goal specificity: how specific and clear the goal is: abstract goal, such as "find a good job", or really clarified goal, such as:"I want to be an interface designer in Microsoft who can be involved in improving 'Microsoft office' series"; 2. Task difficulty: how difficult to reach the goal, which actually includes cognitive process of self-esteem. It's a subjective comparing between the degree of proficiency or level of performance people are seeking and the level of current capability or potential capability that people have, which also involves the estimation of the effort that will take. More investment of effort are predicted, more difficult the goal that people would regard as. There was some arguments about the notion of task difficulty and goal difficulty. According to Locke & Latham's paper in 1981, the terms task difficulty and goal difficulty were often used interchangeably, but normally, goal refers to a final goal in terms of an event, while the tasks included could be sub-goals under the final one or the steps toward the termination of the whole process.

The evidence of a positive, linear relation between goal difficulty and task performance (assuming sufficient ability) was firstly found by Locke (1968), and later studies had supported this finding (Locke & Latham,1981), which says harder goals led to better performance than easy goals under the assumption that people have sufficient ability and further have accurate estimate of the ability. Current research in efficacy found out that students with over-confidence, who over-estimate their ability in terms of their goal setting, would have worse grades comparing to others, which also hurts their post-efficacy. But researcher also found that the outcome could be even worse for the student with self-humiliation. So it might imply that underestimation of the goal difficulty and over-estimation of self-capability may generate better outcome than overestimation of goal difficulty and underestimation of the ability.

Specific hard goals versus "do best" goals or no goals: Previous research found that specific, challenging (difficult) goals elicit higher effort investment and output than vague goals such as "do your best" (Locke, 1968). Subsequent research has strongly supported these results, although in a number of studies, no distinction was made between groups told to do their best and those assigned no specific goals(Locke & Latham,1981).

There are other aspects about multiple goals are goal complexity and goal conflict: Goal Complexity refers to the number and interrelation of the results aimed for, while Goal Conflict refers to the degree to which attaining one goal negates or subverts attaining another.

And '''Intensity of a goal''' is about "HOW", pertaining to the process of setting the goal or of determining how to reach it, which would be measured by such factors as the scope of the cognitive process, the degree of effort required, the importance of the goal, and the context in which it is set(Locke & Latham,1981). Goal intensity is positively related to goal content. For example, a more intense psychological process is needed for setting complex goals and to figure out how to attain them than the process needed to set and attain simple goals.

According to Locke et al's paper in 1981, the concept of goal setting fell within the broad domain of cognitive psychology and is consistent with cognitive behavior modification. The interest of researchers in goal setting at that time had two sources, one academic and the other organizational. The academic source extends back in time from Ryan (1970) and G. Miller, Galanter, and Pribrani (1960), through Lewin, to the Wurzburg School and the associated concepts of intention, task, set, and level of aspiration (see Ryan, 1970, for a summary). The organizational source is traced from Management by Objectives programs, later widely used in industry (see Odiorne, 1978, for a summary). Nowadays, Goal setting is an important componentof social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) in terms of its effect on task performance, while in the industry, lots of online tutorial, management tool and theory are produced based on goal setting components and aim at improving employee's working performance.

==Goal commitment==

Goal commitment is also an important component in goal setting theory. According to Locke et al (1981), it refers to the determination to try for a goal. Commitment implies the extension of effort,toward the accomplishment of an original goal and emphasizes an unwillingness to abandon or to lower the original goal(Campion & Lord, 1982). Goal commitment is basically about how much people would like to stick onto the goal: more important the goal is, more commitment to the goal. Also self-efficacy, pre-investment (how much effort or resource have already been put into achieving the goal)and social environment may also influence the developing of goal commitment. In addition, the emphasis is on commitment to difficult or challenging goals instead of comparably easy or simple goals.

==Feedback==

Feedback was also called knowledge of result [KR] in Locke's study (Locke et al.), and attempts were made to separate the effects of feedback (i.e., knowledge of results [KR]) from the effects of goal setting to determine whether KR directly influenced performance or whether its effects were mediated by goal-setting activity (Locke, 1967; Locke & Bryan, 1968, 1969a, 1969b; Locke, Cartledge, & Koeppel, 1968). In the most carefully controlled of these previous studies, all subjects with specific goals also received knowledge of their performance in relation to their goals; individuals in the KR conditions received knowledge of their actual scores presented in such a way as to preclude their use in setting goals. Such knowledge of scores did not lead to better performance than no knowledge of scores. The evidence from these and related studies indicated that knowledge of scores was not sufficient to improve task performance. However, since groups with goals and no KR were not included, these studies did not test the possibility that KR may be a necessary condition for goals to affect performance. These studies were conduct in late 1960s, and in later Power's study(1973), the linkage between goal setting and feedback within control systems was suggested. According to Powers, both goals and task feedback are compared by the mechanism labeled “comparator”. If a sufficiently large discrepancy of error exists, some form of remedial action is triggered. The dependence of the comparator on both goals and feedback is quite consistent with recent goal-setting research demonstrating that neither goals nor feedback, by themselves, significantly affect performance, but the feedback will definitely affect goal-setting or mediate the goal setting for reducing the discrepancy and the error-eliminating response will be initiated. Taking "to do a programming homework" as an example, the student may set up a goal as "spend 1 hour to complete the homework alone", but after half an hour, he notices that there are always errors reported and debugging takes much more time than his prior prediction, so he might want to change the goal into either spending one more hour in this homework or asking for help from peers or TA. Here, error reports from the compiler is the feedback or called knowledge of results that is interpreted to the student, which actually mediate his goal-setting.

Goal setting and feedback are widely believed to affect performance positively through enhancing the information and motivation necessary for work performance (Earley, Northcraft, Lee, & Lituchy, 1990).The performance benefit that goals produce is argued to stem from influencing the effort, persistence, and strategic direction of individual performance ( Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981).

Individual difference in laboratory study had also been looked into in Locke's study in early 1980s, and several variables have been examined: demographic variable (education, sex, age, race, job tenure) and personality variable (need for achievement, need for independence, self-esteem, internal vs. external control), but little significant results are found due to the inconsistent individual differences in the laboratory study (Locke et al. 1981).

==Goal setting’s effect on student’s performance with classroom setting==

'''Student Expectations About Affective Correlates of Academic'''

Performance often improves when difficult and specific goals have been set, which does not mean that goal setting techniques will automatically enhance actual school performance, of course, because that will also depend on other factors. One such factor is student perceptions of the consequences of goal setting, especially perception of affective consequences, which highly relates to the subjective estimation of the goal difficulty. To the extent that the affective consequences of goal setting are perceived as negative, it should be more difficult to persuade students to commit themselves to difficult and specific goals, no matter what the actual consequences are and even if other expected consequences are favorable. As a conclusion, students' expectations of affective consequences should support rather than disrupt beneficial effects of goal setting on performance, and examining the extent to which students have negative affective expectations about goal setting is critical(Wicker, Brown, Hagen, Boring, Wiehe, 1991).

==Some main research findings in goal setting ==
*specific and challenging goals lead to higher performance than easy goals, "do your best" goals, or no goals (Locke et al. 1981);
*A harder task led to better weight-lifting performance than an easier task when subjects were deceived as to the actual weights (Ness & Patton,1979);
*Goals affect performance by directing attention, mobilizing effort, increasing persistence, and motivating strategy development (Locke et al. 1981);
*Goal setting is most likely to improve task performance when:
**The goals are specific and sufficiently challenging;
**The subjects have sufficient ability or the ability differences are controlled;
**Feedback is provided to show progress in relation to the goal, rewards such as money are given for goal attainment;
**The experimenter or manager is supportive, and assigned goals are accepted by the individual (Locke et al. 1981).
*No reliable individual differences have emerged in goal-setting studies, probably because the goals were typically assigned rather than self-set (Locke et al. 1981);
*Error could be reduced by changing initial goals (Campion & Lord, 1982);
*Multiple goals: several tasks may be effectively coordinated through the use of multiple, goal dependent feedback loops(Campion & Lord, 1982);
*The choice of initial goals: in many situation, the choice of initial goals is an important determinant of performance, especially when task feedback is slow or when tasks are not repetitive (Campion & Lord, 1982);
*Goals may be set close to levels of past performance on familiar tasks (Campion & Lord, 1982);
*Initial goals may be derived from higher level objectives which are hierarchically organized (Campion & Lord, 1982);
*Initial goals may be externally influenced by social processed such as social comparison of modeling (Campion & Lord, 1982).

==References==

#Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969-1980. Edwin A. Locke, Lise M. Saari, Karyll N. ShawGary P. Latham
#A Control Systems Conceptualization of the Goal-Setting and Changing Process. (1982). Michael A. Campion, Robert G. Lord.
#Goal Commitment and the Goal-Setting Process: Problems, Prospects, and Proposals for Future Research. (1987).John R. Hollenbeck and Howard J. Klein.
#Goal Setting, Achievement Orientation, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meditational Analysis. (1994). Andrew J. Elliot, Judith M. Harackiewicz.
#Achievement Goals in the Classroom: Students' Learning Strategies and Motivation Processes. (1988).Carole Ames, Jennifer Archer.
#Student Expectations about Affective Correlates of Academic Goal Setting. (1991). Frank W. Wicker, Gall Brown, Anastasia S. Hagen, Wayne Boring, James A. Wiehe.

Goal setting and its constructs

2009-04-15T02:49:42Z

Clare.xie:

"Goal" has been defined simply as "something that the person wants to achieve" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 2). Goal setting theory assumes that human action is directed by conscious goals and intentions" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 4). "Goal setting" refers to a specific outcome that an individual is striving to achieve(Dweck, 1992).

==Goal setting==
Goal setting is a process that involves setting up specific objects, measurements and strategy to achieve the goal, which also includes the strategy modification in terms of the feedback or error made.According to earlier research, the two major attributes of goal setting are Content and Intensity(Rand, 1967).

'''Content of a goal''' is mainly talking about "WHAT":the object and final results that people want to achieve, which contains several aspects:1. Goal specificity: how specific and clear the goal is: abstract goal, such as "find a good job", or really clarified goal, such as:"I want to be an interface designer in Microsoft who can be involved in improving 'Microsoft office' series"; 2. Task difficulty: how difficult to reach the goal, which actually includes cognitive process of self-esteem. It's a subjective comparing between the degree of proficiency or level of performance people are seeking and the level of current capability or potential capability that people have, which also involves the estimation of the effort that will take. More investment of effort are predicted, more difficult the goal that people would regard as. There was some arguments about the notion of task difficulty and goal difficulty. According to Locke & Latham's paper in 1981, the terms task difficulty and goal difficulty were often used interchangeably, but normally, goal refers to a final goal in terms of an event, while the tasks included could be sub-goals under the final one or the steps toward the termination of the whole process.

The evidence of a positive, linear relation between goal difficulty and task performance (assuming sufficient ability) was firstly found by Locke (1968), and later studies had supported this finding (Locke & Latham,1981), which says harder goals led to better performance than easy goals under the assumption that people have sufficient ability and further have accurate estimate of the ability. Current research in efficacy found out that students with over-confidence, who over-estimate their ability in terms of their goal setting, would have worse grades comparing to others, which also hurts their post-efficacy. But researcher also found that the outcome could be even worse for the student with self-humiliation. So it might imply that underestimation of the goal difficulty and over-estimation of self-capability may generate better outcome than overestimation of goal difficulty and underestimation of the ability.

Specific hard goals versus "do best" goals or no goals: Previous research found that specific, challenging (difficult) goals elicit higher effort investment and output than vague goals such as "do your best" (Locke, 1968). Subsequent research has strongly supported these results, although in a number of studies, no distinction was made between groups told to do their best and those assigned no specific goals(Locke & Latham,1981).

There are other aspects about multiple goals are goal complexity and goal conflict: Goal Complexity refers to the number and interrelation of the results aimed for, while Goal Conflict refers to the degree to which attaining one goal negates or subverts attaining another.

And '''Intensity of a goal''' is about "HOW", pertaining to the process of setting the goal or of determining how to reach it, which would be measured by such factors as the scope of the cognitive process, the degree of effort required, the importance of the goal, and the context in which it is set(Locke & Latham,1981). Goal intensity is positively related to goal content. For example, a more intense psychological process is needed for setting complex goals and to figure out how to attain them than the process needed to set and attain simple goals.

According to Locke et al's paper in 1981, the concept of goal setting fell within the broad domain of cognitive psychology and is consistent with cognitive behavior modification. The interest of researchers in goal setting at that time had two sources, one academic and the other organizational. The academic source extends back in time from Ryan (1970) and G. Miller, Galanter, and Pribrani (1960), through Lewin, to the Wurzburg School and the associated concepts of intention, task, set, and level of aspiration (see Ryan, 1970, for a summary). The organizational source is traced from Management by Objectives programs, later widely used in industry (see Odiorne, 1978, for a summary). Nowadays, Goal setting is an important componentof social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) in terms of its effect on task performance, while in the industry, lots of online tutorial, management tool and theory are produced based on goal setting components and aim at improving employee's working performance.

==Goal commitment==

Goal commitment is also an important component in goal setting theory. According to Locke et al (1981), it refers to the determination to try for a goal. Commitment implies the extension of effort,toward the accomplishment of an original goal and emphasizes an unwillingness to abandon or to lower the original goal(Campion & Lord, 1982). Goal commitment is basically about how much people would like to stick onto the goal: more important the goal is, more commitment to the goal. Also self-efficacy, pre-investment (how much effort or resource have already been put into achieving the goal)and social environment may also influence the developing of goal commitment. In addition, the emphasis is on commitment to difficult or challenging goals instead of comparably easy or simple goals.

==Feedback==

Feedback was also called knowledge of result [KR] in Locke's study (Locke et al.), and attempts were made to separate the effects of feedback (i.e., knowledge of results [KR]) from the effects of goal setting to determine whether KR directly influenced performance or whether its effects were mediated by goal-setting activity (Locke, 1967; Locke & Bryan, 1968, 1969a, 1969b; Locke, Cartledge, & Koeppel, 1968). In the most carefully controlled of these previous studies, all subjects with specific goals also received knowledge of their performance in relation to their goals; individuals in the KR conditions received knowledge of their actual scores presented in such a way as to preclude their use in setting goals. Such knowledge of scores did not lead to better performance than no knowledge of scores. The evidence from these and related studies indicated that knowledge of scores was not sufficient to improve task performance. However, since groups with goals and no KR were not included, these studies did not test the possibility that KR may be a necessary condition for goals to affect performance. These studies were conduct in late 1960s, and in later Power's study(1973), the linkage between goal setting and feedback within control systems was suggested. According to Powers, both goals and task feedback are compared by the mechanism labeled “comparator”. If a sufficiently large discrepancy of error exists, some form of remedial action is triggered. The dependence of the comparator on both goals and feedback is quite consistent with recent goal-setting research demonstrating that neither goals nor feedback, by themselves, significantly affect performance, but the feedback will definitely affect goal-setting or mediate the goal setting for reducing the discrepancy and the error-eliminating response will be initiated. Taking "to do a programming homework" as an example, the student may set up a goal as "spend 1 hour to complete the homework alone", but after half an hour, he notices that there are always errors reported and debugging takes much more time than his prior prediction, so he might want to change the goal into either spending one more hour in this homework or asking for help from peers or TA. Here, error reports from the compiler is the feedback or called knowledge of results that is interpreted to the student, which actually mediate his goal-setting.

Goal setting and feedback are widely believed to affect performance positively through enhancing the information and motivation necessary for work performance (Earley, Northcraft, Lee, & Lituchy, 1990).The performance benefit that goals produce is argued to stem from influencing the effort, persistence, and strategic direction of individual performance ( Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981).

Individual difference in laboratory study had also been looked into in Locke's study in early 1980s, and several variables have been examined: demographic variable (education, sex, age, race, job tenure) and personality variable (need for achievement, need for independence, self-esteem, internal vs. external control), but little significant results are found due to the inconsistent individual differences in the laboratory study (Locke et al. 1981).

==Goal setting’s effect on student’s performance with classroom setting==

'''Student Expectations About Affective Correlates of Academic'''

Performance often improves when difficult and specific goals have been set, which does not mean that goal setting techniques will automatically enhance actual school performance, of course, because that will also depend on other factors. One such factor is student perceptions of the consequences of goal setting, especially perception of affective consequences, which highly relates to the subjective estimation of the goal difficulty. To the extent that the affective consequences of goal setting are perceived as negative, it should be more difficult to persuade students to commit themselves to difficult and specific goals, no matter what the actual consequences are and even if other expected consequences are favorable. As a conclusion, students' expectations of affective consequences should support rather than disrupt beneficial effects of goal setting on performance, and examining the extent to which students have negative affective expectations about goal setting is critical(Wicker, Brown, Hagen, Boring, Wiehe, 1991).

==Some main research findings in goal setting ==
*specific and challenging goals lead to higher performance than easy goals, "do your best" goals, or no goals (Locke et al. 1981);
*A harder task led to better weight-lifting performance than an easier task when subjects were deceived as to the actual weights (Ness & Patton,1979);
*Goals affect performance by directing attention, mobilizing effort, increasing persistence, and motivating strategy development (Locke et al. 1981);
*Goal setting is most likely to improve task performance when:
**The goals are specific and sufficiently challenging;
**The subjects have sufficient ability or the ability differences are controlled;
**Feedback is provided to show progress in relation to the goal, rewards such as money are given for goal attainment;
**The experimenter or manager is supportive, and assigned goals are accepted by the individual (Locke et al. 1981).
*No reliable individual differences have emerged in goal-setting studies, probably because the goals were typically assigned rather than self-set (Locke et al. 1981);
*Error could be reduced by changing initial goals (Campion & Lord, 1982);
*Multiple goals: several tasks may be effectively coordinated through the use of multiple, goal dependent feedback loops(Campion & Lord, 1982);
*The choice of initial goals: in many situation, the choice of initial goals is an important determinant of performance, especially when task feedback is slow or when tasks are not repetitive (Campion & Lord, 1982);
*Goals may be set close to levels of past performance on familiar tasks (Campion & Lord, 1982);
*Initial goals may be derived from higher level objectives which are hierarchically organized (Campion & Lord, 1982);
*Initial goals may be externally influenced by social processed such as social comparison of modeling (Campion & Lord, 1982).

==References==

#Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969-1980. Edwin A. Locke, Lise M. Saari, Karyll N. ShawGary P. Latham
#A Control Systems Conceptualization of the Goal-Setting and Changing Process. (1982). Michael A. Campion, Robert G. Lord.
#Goal Commitment and the Goal-Setting Process: Problems, Prospects, and Proposals for Future Research. (1987).John R. Hollenbeck and Howard J. Klein.
#Goal Setting, Achievement Orientation, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meditational Analysis. (1994). Andrew J. Elliot, Judith M. Harackiewicz.
#Achievement Goals in the Classroom: Students' Learning Strategies and Motivation Processes. (1988).Carole Ames, Jennifer Archer.
#Student Expectations about Affective Correlates of Academic Goal Setting. (1991). Frank W. Wicker, Gall Brown, Anastasia S. Hagen, Wayne Boring, James A. Wiehe.

Goal setting and its constructs

2009-04-15T02:45:45Z

Clare.xie: /* some main research findings in goal setting */

"Goal" has been defined simply as "something that the person wants to achieve" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 2). Goal setting theory assumes that human action is directed by conscious goals and intentions" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 4). "Goal setting" refers to a specific outcome that an individual is striving to achieve(Dweck, 1992).

==Goal setting==
Goal setting is a process that involves setting up specific objects, measurements and strategy to achieve the goal, which also includes the strategy modification in terms of the feedback or error made.According to earlier research, the two major attributes of goal setting are Content and Intensity(Rand, 1967).

'''Content of a goal''' is mainly talking about "WHAT":the object and final results that people want to achieve, which contains several aspects:1. Goal specificity: how specific and clear the goal is: abstract goal, such as "find a good job", or really clarified goal, such as:"I want to be an interface designer in Microsoft who can be involved in improving 'Microsoft office' series"; 2. Task difficulty: how difficult to reach the goal, which actually includes cognitive process of self-esteem. It's a subjective comparing between the degree of proficiency or level of performance people are seeking and the level of current capability or potential capability that people have, which also involves the estimation of the effort that will take. More investment of effort are predicted, more difficult the goal that people would regard as. There was some arguments about the notion of task difficulty and goal difficulty. According to Locke & Latham's paper in 1981, the terms task difficulty and goal difficulty were often used interchangeably, but normally, goal refers to a final goal in terms of an event, while the tasks included could be sub-goals under the final one or the steps toward the termination of the whole process.

The evidence of a positive, linear relation between goal difficulty and task performance (assuming sufficient ability) was firstly found by Locke (1968), and later studies had supported this finding (Locke & Latham,1981), which says harder goals led to better performance than easy goals under the assumption that people have sufficient ability and further have accurate estimate of the ability. Current research in efficacy found out that students with over-confidence, who over-estimate their ability in terms of their goal setting, would have worse grades comparing to others, which also hurts their post-efficacy. But researcher also found that the outcome could be even worse for the student with self-humiliation. So it might imply that underestimation of the goal difficulty and over-estimation of self-capability may generate better outcome than overestimation of goal difficulty and underestimation of the ability.

Specific hard goals versus "do best" goals or no goals: Previous research found that specific, challenging (difficult) goals elicit higher effort investment and output than vague goals such as "do your best" (Locke, 1968). Subsequent research has strongly supported these results, although in a number of studies, no distinction was made between groups told to do their best and those assigned no specific goals(Locke & Latham,1981).

There are other aspects about multiple goals are goal complexity and goal conflict: Goal Complexity refers to the number and interrelation of the results aimed for, while Goal Conflict refers to the degree to which attaining one goal negates or subverts attaining another.

And '''Intensity of a goal''' is about "HOW", pertaining to the process of setting the goal or of determining how to reach it, which would be measured by such factors as the scope of the cognitive process, the degree of effort required, the importance of the goal, and the context in which it is set(Locke & Latham,1981). Goal intensity is positively related to goal content. For example, a more intense psychological process is needed for setting complex goals and to figure out how to attain them than the process needed to set and attain simple goals.

According to Locke et al's paper in 1981, the concept of goal setting fell within the broad domain of cognitive psychology and is consistent with cognitive behavior modification. The interest of researchers in goal setting at that time had two sources, one academic and the other organizational. The academic source extends back in time from Ryan (1970) and G. Miller, Galanter, and Pribrani (1960), through Lewin, to the Wurzburg School and the associated concepts of intention, task, set, and level of aspiration (see Ryan, 1970, for a summary). The organizational source is traced from Management by Objectives programs, later widely used in industry (see Odiorne, 1978, for a summary). Nowadays, Goal setting is an important componentof social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) in terms of its effect on task performance, while in the industry, lots of online tutorial, management tool and theory are produced based on goal setting components and aim at improving employee's working performance.

==Goal commitment==

Goal commitment is also an important component in goal setting theory. According to Locke et al (1981), it refers to the determination to try for a goal. Commitment implies the extension of effort,toward the accomplishment of an original goal and emphasizes an unwillingness to abandon or to lower the original goal(Campion & Lord, 1982). Goal commitment is basically about how much people would like to stick onto the goal: more important the goal is, more commitment to the goal. Also self-efficacy, pre-investment (how much effort or resource have already been put into achieving the goal)and social environment may also influence the developing of goal commitment. In addition, the emphasis is on commitment to difficult or challenging goals instead of comparably easy or simple goals.

==Feedback==

Feedback was also called knowledge of result [KR] in Locke's study (Locke et al.), and attempts were made to separate the effects of feedback (i.e., knowledge of results [KR]) from the effects of goal setting to determine whether KR directly influenced performance or whether its effects were mediated by goal-setting activity (Locke, 1967; Locke & Bryan, 1968, 1969a, 1969b; Locke, Cartledge, & Koeppel, 1968). In the most carefully controlled of these previous studies, all subjects with specific goals also received knowledge of their performance in relation to their goals; individuals in the KR conditions received knowledge of their actual scores presented in such a way as to preclude their use in setting goals. Such knowledge of scores did not lead to better performance than no knowledge of scores. The evidence from these and related studies indicated that knowledge of scores was not sufficient to improve task performance. However, since groups with goals and no KR were not included, these studies did not test the possibility that KR may be a necessary condition for goals to affect performance. These studies were conduct in late 1960s, and in later Power's study(1973), the linkage between goal setting and feedback within control systems was suggested. According to Powers, both goals and task feedback are compared by the mechanism labeled “comparator”. If a sufficiently large discrepancy of error exists, some form of remedial action is triggered. The dependence of the comparator on both goals and feedback is quite consistent with recent goal-setting research demonstrating that neither goals nor feedback, by themselves, significantly affect performance, but the feedback will definitely affect goal-setting or mediate the goal setting for reducing the discrepancy and the error-eliminating response will be initiated. Taking "to do a programming homework" as an example, the student may set up a goal as "spend 1 hour to complete the homework alone", but after half an hour, he notices that there are always errors reported and debugging takes much more time than his prior prediction, so he might want to change the goal into either spending one more hour in this homework or asking for help from peers or TA. Here, error reports from the compiler is the feedback or called knowledge of results that is interpreted to the student, which actually mediate his goal-setting.

Goal setting and feedback are widely believed to affect performance positively through enhancing the information and motivation necessary for work performance (Earley, Northcraft, Lee, & Lituchy, 1990).The performance benefit that goals produce is argued to stem from influencing the effort, persistence, and strategic direction of individual performance ( Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981).

Individual difference in laboratory study had also been looked into in Locke's study in early 1980s, and several variables have been examined: demographic variable (education, sex, age, race, job tenure) and personality variable (need for achievement, need for independence, self-esteem, internal vs. external control), but little significant results are found due to the inconsistent individual differences in the laboratory study (Locke et al. 1981).

==Goal setting’s effect on student’s performance with classroom setting==

'''Student Expectations About Affective Correlates of Academic'''

Performance often improves when difficult and specific goals have been set, which does not mean that goal setting techniques will automatically enhance actual school performance, of course, because that will also depend on other factors. One such factor is student perceptions of the consequences of goal setting, especially perception of affective consequences, which highly relates to the subjective estimation of the goal difficulty. To the extent that the affective consequences of goal setting are perceived as negative, it should be more difficult to persuade students to commit themselves to difficult and specific goals, no matter what the actual consequences are and even if other expected consequences are favorable. As a conclusion, students' expectations of affective consequences should support rather than disrupt beneficial effects of goal setting on performance, and examining the extent to which students have negative affective expectations about goal setting is critical(Wicker, Brown, Hagen, Boring, Wiehe, 1991).

==Some main research findings in goal setting ==
*specific and challenging goals lead to higher performance than easy goals, "do your best" goals, or no goals.
*A harder task led to better weight-lifting performance than an easier task when subjects were deceived as to the actual weights (Ness & Patton,1979)
*Goals affect performance by directing attention, mobilizing effort, increasing persistence, and motivating strategy development.
*Goal setting is most likely to improve task performance when:
**The goals are specific and sufficiently challenging;
**The subjects have sufficient ability or the ability differences are controlled;
**Feedback is provided to show progress in relation to the goal, rewards such as money are given for goal attainment;
**The experimenter or manager is supportive, and assigned goals are accepted by the individual.
*No reliable individual differences have emerged in goal-setting studies, probably because the goals were typically assigned rather than self-set;
*Error could be reduced by changing initial goals;
*Multiple goals: several tasks may be effectively coordinated through the use of multiple, goal dependent feedback loops
*The choice of initial goals: in many situation, the choice of initial goals is an important determinant of performance, especially when task feedback is slow or when tasks are not repetitive.
*Goals may be set close to levels of past performance on familiar tasks;
*Initial goals may be derived from higher level objectives which are hierarchically organized;
*Initial goals may be externally influenced by social processed such as social comparison of modeling.

==References==

#Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969-1980. Edwin A. Locke, Lise M. Saari, Karyll N. ShawGary P. Latham
#A Control Systems Conceptualization of the Goal-Setting and Changing Process. (1982). Michael A. Campion, Robert G. Lord.
#Goal Commitment and the Goal-Setting Process: Problems, Prospects, and Proposals for Future Research. (1987).John R. Hollenbeck and Howard J. Klein.
#Goal Setting, Achievement Orientation, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meditational Analysis. (1994). Andrew J. Elliot, Judith M. Harackiewicz.
#Achievement Goals in the Classroom: Students' Learning Strategies and Motivation Processes. (1988).Carole Ames, Jennifer Archer.
#Student Expectations about Affective Correlates of Academic Goal Setting. (1991). Frank W. Wicker, Gall Brown, Anastasia S. Hagen, Wayne Boring, James A. Wiehe.

Goal setting and its constructs

2009-04-15T02:45:02Z

Clare.xie: /* Goal setting’s effect on student’s performance with classroom setting */

"Goal" has been defined simply as "something that the person wants to achieve" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 2). Goal setting theory assumes that human action is directed by conscious goals and intentions" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 4). "Goal setting" refers to a specific outcome that an individual is striving to achieve(Dweck, 1992).

==Goal setting==
Goal setting is a process that involves setting up specific objects, measurements and strategy to achieve the goal, which also includes the strategy modification in terms of the feedback or error made.According to earlier research, the two major attributes of goal setting are Content and Intensity(Rand, 1967).

'''Content of a goal''' is mainly talking about "WHAT":the object and final results that people want to achieve, which contains several aspects:1. Goal specificity: how specific and clear the goal is: abstract goal, such as "find a good job", or really clarified goal, such as:"I want to be an interface designer in Microsoft who can be involved in improving 'Microsoft office' series"; 2. Task difficulty: how difficult to reach the goal, which actually includes cognitive process of self-esteem. It's a subjective comparing between the degree of proficiency or level of performance people are seeking and the level of current capability or potential capability that people have, which also involves the estimation of the effort that will take. More investment of effort are predicted, more difficult the goal that people would regard as. There was some arguments about the notion of task difficulty and goal difficulty. According to Locke & Latham's paper in 1981, the terms task difficulty and goal difficulty were often used interchangeably, but normally, goal refers to a final goal in terms of an event, while the tasks included could be sub-goals under the final one or the steps toward the termination of the whole process.

The evidence of a positive, linear relation between goal difficulty and task performance (assuming sufficient ability) was firstly found by Locke (1968), and later studies had supported this finding (Locke & Latham,1981), which says harder goals led to better performance than easy goals under the assumption that people have sufficient ability and further have accurate estimate of the ability. Current research in efficacy found out that students with over-confidence, who over-estimate their ability in terms of their goal setting, would have worse grades comparing to others, which also hurts their post-efficacy. But researcher also found that the outcome could be even worse for the student with self-humiliation. So it might imply that underestimation of the goal difficulty and over-estimation of self-capability may generate better outcome than overestimation of goal difficulty and underestimation of the ability.

Specific hard goals versus "do best" goals or no goals: Previous research found that specific, challenging (difficult) goals elicit higher effort investment and output than vague goals such as "do your best" (Locke, 1968). Subsequent research has strongly supported these results, although in a number of studies, no distinction was made between groups told to do their best and those assigned no specific goals(Locke & Latham,1981).

There are other aspects about multiple goals are goal complexity and goal conflict: Goal Complexity refers to the number and interrelation of the results aimed for, while Goal Conflict refers to the degree to which attaining one goal negates or subverts attaining another.

And '''Intensity of a goal''' is about "HOW", pertaining to the process of setting the goal or of determining how to reach it, which would be measured by such factors as the scope of the cognitive process, the degree of effort required, the importance of the goal, and the context in which it is set(Locke & Latham,1981). Goal intensity is positively related to goal content. For example, a more intense psychological process is needed for setting complex goals and to figure out how to attain them than the process needed to set and attain simple goals.

According to Locke et al's paper in 1981, the concept of goal setting fell within the broad domain of cognitive psychology and is consistent with cognitive behavior modification. The interest of researchers in goal setting at that time had two sources, one academic and the other organizational. The academic source extends back in time from Ryan (1970) and G. Miller, Galanter, and Pribrani (1960), through Lewin, to the Wurzburg School and the associated concepts of intention, task, set, and level of aspiration (see Ryan, 1970, for a summary). The organizational source is traced from Management by Objectives programs, later widely used in industry (see Odiorne, 1978, for a summary). Nowadays, Goal setting is an important componentof social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) in terms of its effect on task performance, while in the industry, lots of online tutorial, management tool and theory are produced based on goal setting components and aim at improving employee's working performance.

==Goal commitment==

Goal commitment is also an important component in goal setting theory. According to Locke et al (1981), it refers to the determination to try for a goal. Commitment implies the extension of effort,toward the accomplishment of an original goal and emphasizes an unwillingness to abandon or to lower the original goal(Campion & Lord, 1982). Goal commitment is basically about how much people would like to stick onto the goal: more important the goal is, more commitment to the goal. Also self-efficacy, pre-investment (how much effort or resource have already been put into achieving the goal)and social environment may also influence the developing of goal commitment. In addition, the emphasis is on commitment to difficult or challenging goals instead of comparably easy or simple goals.

==Feedback==

Feedback was also called knowledge of result [KR] in Locke's study (Locke et al.), and attempts were made to separate the effects of feedback (i.e., knowledge of results [KR]) from the effects of goal setting to determine whether KR directly influenced performance or whether its effects were mediated by goal-setting activity (Locke, 1967; Locke & Bryan, 1968, 1969a, 1969b; Locke, Cartledge, & Koeppel, 1968). In the most carefully controlled of these previous studies, all subjects with specific goals also received knowledge of their performance in relation to their goals; individuals in the KR conditions received knowledge of their actual scores presented in such a way as to preclude their use in setting goals. Such knowledge of scores did not lead to better performance than no knowledge of scores. The evidence from these and related studies indicated that knowledge of scores was not sufficient to improve task performance. However, since groups with goals and no KR were not included, these studies did not test the possibility that KR may be a necessary condition for goals to affect performance. These studies were conduct in late 1960s, and in later Power's study(1973), the linkage between goal setting and feedback within control systems was suggested. According to Powers, both goals and task feedback are compared by the mechanism labeled “comparator”. If a sufficiently large discrepancy of error exists, some form of remedial action is triggered. The dependence of the comparator on both goals and feedback is quite consistent with recent goal-setting research demonstrating that neither goals nor feedback, by themselves, significantly affect performance, but the feedback will definitely affect goal-setting or mediate the goal setting for reducing the discrepancy and the error-eliminating response will be initiated. Taking "to do a programming homework" as an example, the student may set up a goal as "spend 1 hour to complete the homework alone", but after half an hour, he notices that there are always errors reported and debugging takes much more time than his prior prediction, so he might want to change the goal into either spending one more hour in this homework or asking for help from peers or TA. Here, error reports from the compiler is the feedback or called knowledge of results that is interpreted to the student, which actually mediate his goal-setting.

Goal setting and feedback are widely believed to affect performance positively through enhancing the information and motivation necessary for work performance (Earley, Northcraft, Lee, & Lituchy, 1990).The performance benefit that goals produce is argued to stem from influencing the effort, persistence, and strategic direction of individual performance ( Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981).

Individual difference in laboratory study had also been looked into in Locke's study in early 1980s, and several variables have been examined: demographic variable (education, sex, age, race, job tenure) and personality variable (need for achievement, need for independence, self-esteem, internal vs. external control), but little significant results are found due to the inconsistent individual differences in the laboratory study (Locke et al. 1981).

==Goal setting’s effect on student’s performance with classroom setting==

'''Student Expectations About Affective Correlates of Academic'''

Performance often improves when difficult and specific goals have been set, which does not mean that goal setting techniques will automatically enhance actual school performance, of course, because that will also depend on other factors. One such factor is student perceptions of the consequences of goal setting, especially perception of affective consequences, which highly relates to the subjective estimation of the goal difficulty. To the extent that the affective consequences of goal setting are perceived as negative, it should be more difficult to persuade students to commit themselves to difficult and specific goals, no matter what the actual consequences are and even if other expected consequences are favorable. As a conclusion, students' expectations of affective consequences should support rather than disrupt beneficial effects of goal setting on performance, and examining the extent to which students have negative affective expectations about goal setting is critical(Wicker, Brown, Hagen, Boring, Wiehe, 1991).

==some main research findings in goal setting ==
*specific and challenging goals lead to higher performance than easy goals, "do your best" goals, or no goals.
*A harder task led to better weight-lifting performance than an easier task when subjects were deceived as to the actual weights (Ness & Patton,1979)
*Goals affect performance by directing attention, mobilizing effort, increasing persistence, and motivating strategy development.
*Goal setting is most likely to improve task performance when:
**The goals are specific and sufficiently challenging;
**The subjects have sufficient ability or the ability differences are controlled;
**Feedback is provided to show progress in relation to the goal, rewards such as money are given for goal attainment;
**The experimenter or manager is supportive, and assigned goals are accepted by the individual.
*No reliable individual differences have emerged in goal-setting studies, probably because the goals were typically assigned rather than self-set;
*Error could be reduced by changing initial goals;
*Multiple goals: several tasks may be effectively coordinated through the use of multiple, goal dependent feedback loops
*The choice of initial goals: in many situation, the choice of initial goals is an important determinant of performance, especially when task feedback is slow or when tasks are not repetitive.
*Goals may be set close to levels of past performance on familiar tasks;
*Initial goals may be derived from higher level objectives which are hierarchically organized;
*Initial goals may be externally influenced by social processed such as social comparison of modeling.

==References==

#Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969-1980. Edwin A. Locke, Lise M. Saari, Karyll N. ShawGary P. Latham
#A Control Systems Conceptualization of the Goal-Setting and Changing Process. (1982). Michael A. Campion, Robert G. Lord.
#Goal Commitment and the Goal-Setting Process: Problems, Prospects, and Proposals for Future Research. (1987).John R. Hollenbeck and Howard J. Klein.
#Goal Setting, Achievement Orientation, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meditational Analysis. (1994). Andrew J. Elliot, Judith M. Harackiewicz.
#Achievement Goals in the Classroom: Students' Learning Strategies and Motivation Processes. (1988).Carole Ames, Jennifer Archer.
#Student Expectations about Affective Correlates of Academic Goal Setting. (1991). Frank W. Wicker, Gall Brown, Anastasia S. Hagen, Wayne Boring, James A. Wiehe.

Goal setting and its constructs

2009-04-15T02:43:09Z

Clare.xie: /* Goal setting’s effect on student’s performance with classroom setting */

"Goal" has been defined simply as "something that the person wants to achieve" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 2). Goal setting theory assumes that human action is directed by conscious goals and intentions" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 4). "Goal setting" refers to a specific outcome that an individual is striving to achieve(Dweck, 1992).

==Goal setting==
Goal setting is a process that involves setting up specific objects, measurements and strategy to achieve the goal, which also includes the strategy modification in terms of the feedback or error made.According to earlier research, the two major attributes of goal setting are Content and Intensity(Rand, 1967).

'''Content of a goal''' is mainly talking about "WHAT":the object and final results that people want to achieve, which contains several aspects:1. Goal specificity: how specific and clear the goal is: abstract goal, such as "find a good job", or really clarified goal, such as:"I want to be an interface designer in Microsoft who can be involved in improving 'Microsoft office' series"; 2. Task difficulty: how difficult to reach the goal, which actually includes cognitive process of self-esteem. It's a subjective comparing between the degree of proficiency or level of performance people are seeking and the level of current capability or potential capability that people have, which also involves the estimation of the effort that will take. More investment of effort are predicted, more difficult the goal that people would regard as. There was some arguments about the notion of task difficulty and goal difficulty. According to Locke & Latham's paper in 1981, the terms task difficulty and goal difficulty were often used interchangeably, but normally, goal refers to a final goal in terms of an event, while the tasks included could be sub-goals under the final one or the steps toward the termination of the whole process.

The evidence of a positive, linear relation between goal difficulty and task performance (assuming sufficient ability) was firstly found by Locke (1968), and later studies had supported this finding (Locke & Latham,1981), which says harder goals led to better performance than easy goals under the assumption that people have sufficient ability and further have accurate estimate of the ability. Current research in efficacy found out that students with over-confidence, who over-estimate their ability in terms of their goal setting, would have worse grades comparing to others, which also hurts their post-efficacy. But researcher also found that the outcome could be even worse for the student with self-humiliation. So it might imply that underestimation of the goal difficulty and over-estimation of self-capability may generate better outcome than overestimation of goal difficulty and underestimation of the ability.

Specific hard goals versus "do best" goals or no goals: Previous research found that specific, challenging (difficult) goals elicit higher effort investment and output than vague goals such as "do your best" (Locke, 1968). Subsequent research has strongly supported these results, although in a number of studies, no distinction was made between groups told to do their best and those assigned no specific goals(Locke & Latham,1981).

There are other aspects about multiple goals are goal complexity and goal conflict: Goal Complexity refers to the number and interrelation of the results aimed for, while Goal Conflict refers to the degree to which attaining one goal negates or subverts attaining another.

And '''Intensity of a goal''' is about "HOW", pertaining to the process of setting the goal or of determining how to reach it, which would be measured by such factors as the scope of the cognitive process, the degree of effort required, the importance of the goal, and the context in which it is set(Locke & Latham,1981). Goal intensity is positively related to goal content. For example, a more intense psychological process is needed for setting complex goals and to figure out how to attain them than the process needed to set and attain simple goals.

According to Locke et al's paper in 1981, the concept of goal setting fell within the broad domain of cognitive psychology and is consistent with cognitive behavior modification. The interest of researchers in goal setting at that time had two sources, one academic and the other organizational. The academic source extends back in time from Ryan (1970) and G. Miller, Galanter, and Pribrani (1960), through Lewin, to the Wurzburg School and the associated concepts of intention, task, set, and level of aspiration (see Ryan, 1970, for a summary). The organizational source is traced from Management by Objectives programs, later widely used in industry (see Odiorne, 1978, for a summary). Nowadays, Goal setting is an important componentof social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) in terms of its effect on task performance, while in the industry, lots of online tutorial, management tool and theory are produced based on goal setting components and aim at improving employee's working performance.

==Goal commitment==

Goal commitment is also an important component in goal setting theory. According to Locke et al (1981), it refers to the determination to try for a goal. Commitment implies the extension of effort,toward the accomplishment of an original goal and emphasizes an unwillingness to abandon or to lower the original goal(Campion & Lord, 1982). Goal commitment is basically about how much people would like to stick onto the goal: more important the goal is, more commitment to the goal. Also self-efficacy, pre-investment (how much effort or resource have already been put into achieving the goal)and social environment may also influence the developing of goal commitment. In addition, the emphasis is on commitment to difficult or challenging goals instead of comparably easy or simple goals.

==Feedback==

Feedback was also called knowledge of result [KR] in Locke's study (Locke et al.), and attempts were made to separate the effects of feedback (i.e., knowledge of results [KR]) from the effects of goal setting to determine whether KR directly influenced performance or whether its effects were mediated by goal-setting activity (Locke, 1967; Locke & Bryan, 1968, 1969a, 1969b; Locke, Cartledge, & Koeppel, 1968). In the most carefully controlled of these previous studies, all subjects with specific goals also received knowledge of their performance in relation to their goals; individuals in the KR conditions received knowledge of their actual scores presented in such a way as to preclude their use in setting goals. Such knowledge of scores did not lead to better performance than no knowledge of scores. The evidence from these and related studies indicated that knowledge of scores was not sufficient to improve task performance. However, since groups with goals and no KR were not included, these studies did not test the possibility that KR may be a necessary condition for goals to affect performance. These studies were conduct in late 1960s, and in later Power's study(1973), the linkage between goal setting and feedback within control systems was suggested. According to Powers, both goals and task feedback are compared by the mechanism labeled “comparator”. If a sufficiently large discrepancy of error exists, some form of remedial action is triggered. The dependence of the comparator on both goals and feedback is quite consistent with recent goal-setting research demonstrating that neither goals nor feedback, by themselves, significantly affect performance, but the feedback will definitely affect goal-setting or mediate the goal setting for reducing the discrepancy and the error-eliminating response will be initiated. Taking "to do a programming homework" as an example, the student may set up a goal as "spend 1 hour to complete the homework alone", but after half an hour, he notices that there are always errors reported and debugging takes much more time than his prior prediction, so he might want to change the goal into either spending one more hour in this homework or asking for help from peers or TA. Here, error reports from the compiler is the feedback or called knowledge of results that is interpreted to the student, which actually mediate his goal-setting.

Goal setting and feedback are widely believed to affect performance positively through enhancing the information and motivation necessary for work performance (Earley, Northcraft, Lee, & Lituchy, 1990).The performance benefit that goals produce is argued to stem from influencing the effort, persistence, and strategic direction of individual performance ( Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981).

Individual difference in laboratory study had also been looked into in Locke's study in early 1980s, and several variables have been examined: demographic variable (education, sex, age, race, job tenure) and personality variable (need for achievement, need for independence, self-esteem, internal vs. external control), but little significant results are found due to the inconsistent individual differences in the laboratory study (Locke et al. 1981).

==Goal setting’s effect on student’s performance with classroom setting==

'''Student Expectations About Affective Correlates of Academic'''
Performance often improves when difficult and specific goals have been set, which does not mean that goal setting techniques will automatically enhance actual school performance, of course, because that will also depend on other factors. One such factor is student perceptions of the consequences of goal setting, especially perception of affective consequences, which highly relates to the subjective estimation of the goal difficulty. To the extent that the affective consequences of goal setting are perceived as negative, it should be more difficult to persuade students to commit themselves to difficult and specific goals, no matter what the actual consequences are and even if other expected consequences are favorable. As a conclusion, students' expectations of affective consequences should support rather than disrupt beneficial effects of goal setting on performance, and examining the extent to which students have negative affective expectations about goal setting is desired.

==some main research findings in goal setting ==
*specific and challenging goals lead to higher performance than easy goals, "do your best" goals, or no goals.
*A harder task led to better weight-lifting performance than an easier task when subjects were deceived as to the actual weights (Ness & Patton,1979)
*Goals affect performance by directing attention, mobilizing effort, increasing persistence, and motivating strategy development.
*Goal setting is most likely to improve task performance when:
**The goals are specific and sufficiently challenging;
**The subjects have sufficient ability or the ability differences are controlled;
**Feedback is provided to show progress in relation to the goal, rewards such as money are given for goal attainment;
**The experimenter or manager is supportive, and assigned goals are accepted by the individual.
*No reliable individual differences have emerged in goal-setting studies, probably because the goals were typically assigned rather than self-set;
*Error could be reduced by changing initial goals;
*Multiple goals: several tasks may be effectively coordinated through the use of multiple, goal dependent feedback loops
*The choice of initial goals: in many situation, the choice of initial goals is an important determinant of performance, especially when task feedback is slow or when tasks are not repetitive.
*Goals may be set close to levels of past performance on familiar tasks;
*Initial goals may be derived from higher level objectives which are hierarchically organized;
*Initial goals may be externally influenced by social processed such as social comparison of modeling.

==References==

#Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969-1980. Edwin A. Locke, Lise M. Saari, Karyll N. ShawGary P. Latham
#A Control Systems Conceptualization of the Goal-Setting and Changing Process. (1982). Michael A. Campion, Robert G. Lord.
#Goal Commitment and the Goal-Setting Process: Problems, Prospects, and Proposals for Future Research. (1987).John R. Hollenbeck and Howard J. Klein.
#Goal Setting, Achievement Orientation, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meditational Analysis. (1994). Andrew J. Elliot, Judith M. Harackiewicz.
#Achievement Goals in the Classroom: Students' Learning Strategies and Motivation Processes. (1988).Carole Ames, Jennifer Archer.
#Student Expectations about Affective Correlates of Academic Goal Setting. (1991). Frank W. Wicker, Gall Brown, Anastasia S. Hagen, Wayne Boring, James A. Wiehe.

Goal setting and its constructs

2009-04-15T02:33:32Z

Clare.xie: /* Feedback */

"Goal" has been defined simply as "something that the person wants to achieve" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 2). Goal setting theory assumes that human action is directed by conscious goals and intentions" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 4). "Goal setting" refers to a specific outcome that an individual is striving to achieve(Dweck, 1992).

==Goal setting==
Goal setting is a process that involves setting up specific objects, measurements and strategy to achieve the goal, which also includes the strategy modification in terms of the feedback or error made.According to earlier research, the two major attributes of goal setting are Content and Intensity(Rand, 1967).

'''Content of a goal''' is mainly talking about "WHAT":the object and final results that people want to achieve, which contains several aspects:1. Goal specificity: how specific and clear the goal is: abstract goal, such as "find a good job", or really clarified goal, such as:"I want to be an interface designer in Microsoft who can be involved in improving 'Microsoft office' series"; 2. Task difficulty: how difficult to reach the goal, which actually includes cognitive process of self-esteem. It's a subjective comparing between the degree of proficiency or level of performance people are seeking and the level of current capability or potential capability that people have, which also involves the estimation of the effort that will take. More investment of effort are predicted, more difficult the goal that people would regard as. There was some arguments about the notion of task difficulty and goal difficulty. According to Locke & Latham's paper in 1981, the terms task difficulty and goal difficulty were often used interchangeably, but normally, goal refers to a final goal in terms of an event, while the tasks included could be sub-goals under the final one or the steps toward the termination of the whole process.

The evidence of a positive, linear relation between goal difficulty and task performance (assuming sufficient ability) was firstly found by Locke (1968), and later studies had supported this finding (Locke & Latham,1981), which says harder goals led to better performance than easy goals under the assumption that people have sufficient ability and further have accurate estimate of the ability. Current research in efficacy found out that students with over-confidence, who over-estimate their ability in terms of their goal setting, would have worse grades comparing to others, which also hurts their post-efficacy. But researcher also found that the outcome could be even worse for the student with self-humiliation. So it might imply that underestimation of the goal difficulty and over-estimation of self-capability may generate better outcome than overestimation of goal difficulty and underestimation of the ability.

Specific hard goals versus "do best" goals or no goals: Previous research found that specific, challenging (difficult) goals elicit higher effort investment and output than vague goals such as "do your best" (Locke, 1968). Subsequent research has strongly supported these results, although in a number of studies, no distinction was made between groups told to do their best and those assigned no specific goals(Locke & Latham,1981).

There are other aspects about multiple goals are goal complexity and goal conflict: Goal Complexity refers to the number and interrelation of the results aimed for, while Goal Conflict refers to the degree to which attaining one goal negates or subverts attaining another.

And '''Intensity of a goal''' is about "HOW", pertaining to the process of setting the goal or of determining how to reach it, which would be measured by such factors as the scope of the cognitive process, the degree of effort required, the importance of the goal, and the context in which it is set(Locke & Latham,1981). Goal intensity is positively related to goal content. For example, a more intense psychological process is needed for setting complex goals and to figure out how to attain them than the process needed to set and attain simple goals.

According to Locke et al's paper in 1981, the concept of goal setting fell within the broad domain of cognitive psychology and is consistent with cognitive behavior modification. The interest of researchers in goal setting at that time had two sources, one academic and the other organizational. The academic source extends back in time from Ryan (1970) and G. Miller, Galanter, and Pribrani (1960), through Lewin, to the Wurzburg School and the associated concepts of intention, task, set, and level of aspiration (see Ryan, 1970, for a summary). The organizational source is traced from Management by Objectives programs, later widely used in industry (see Odiorne, 1978, for a summary). Nowadays, Goal setting is an important componentof social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) in terms of its effect on task performance, while in the industry, lots of online tutorial, management tool and theory are produced based on goal setting components and aim at improving employee's working performance.

==Goal commitment==

Goal commitment is also an important component in goal setting theory. According to Locke et al (1981), it refers to the determination to try for a goal. Commitment implies the extension of effort,toward the accomplishment of an original goal and emphasizes an unwillingness to abandon or to lower the original goal(Campion & Lord, 1982). Goal commitment is basically about how much people would like to stick onto the goal: more important the goal is, more commitment to the goal. Also self-efficacy, pre-investment (how much effort or resource have already been put into achieving the goal)and social environment may also influence the developing of goal commitment. In addition, the emphasis is on commitment to difficult or challenging goals instead of comparably easy or simple goals.

==Feedback==

Feedback was also called knowledge of result [KR] in Locke's study (Locke et al.), and attempts were made to separate the effects of feedback (i.e., knowledge of results [KR]) from the effects of goal setting to determine whether KR directly influenced performance or whether its effects were mediated by goal-setting activity (Locke, 1967; Locke & Bryan, 1968, 1969a, 1969b; Locke, Cartledge, & Koeppel, 1968). In the most carefully controlled of these previous studies, all subjects with specific goals also received knowledge of their performance in relation to their goals; individuals in the KR conditions received knowledge of their actual scores presented in such a way as to preclude their use in setting goals. Such knowledge of scores did not lead to better performance than no knowledge of scores. The evidence from these and related studies indicated that knowledge of scores was not sufficient to improve task performance. However, since groups with goals and no KR were not included, these studies did not test the possibility that KR may be a necessary condition for goals to affect performance. These studies were conduct in late 1960s, and in later Power's study(1973), the linkage between goal setting and feedback within control systems was suggested. According to Powers, both goals and task feedback are compared by the mechanism labeled “comparator”. If a sufficiently large discrepancy of error exists, some form of remedial action is triggered. The dependence of the comparator on both goals and feedback is quite consistent with recent goal-setting research demonstrating that neither goals nor feedback, by themselves, significantly affect performance, but the feedback will definitely affect goal-setting or mediate the goal setting for reducing the discrepancy and the error-eliminating response will be initiated. Taking "to do a programming homework" as an example, the student may set up a goal as "spend 1 hour to complete the homework alone", but after half an hour, he notices that there are always errors reported and debugging takes much more time than his prior prediction, so he might want to change the goal into either spending one more hour in this homework or asking for help from peers or TA. Here, error reports from the compiler is the feedback or called knowledge of results that is interpreted to the student, which actually mediate his goal-setting.

Goal setting and feedback are widely believed to affect performance positively through enhancing the information and motivation necessary for work performance (Earley, Northcraft, Lee, & Lituchy, 1990).The performance benefit that goals produce is argued to stem from influencing the effort, persistence, and strategic direction of individual performance ( Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981).

Individual difference in laboratory study had also been looked into in Locke's study in early 1980s, and several variables have been examined: demographic variable (education, sex, age, race, job tenure) and personality variable (need for achievement, need for independence, self-esteem, internal vs. external control), but little significant results are found due to the inconsistent individual differences in the laboratory study (Locke et al. 1981).

==Goal setting’s effect on student’s performance with classroom setting==

'''Student Expectations About Affective Correlates of Academic'''
Performance benefit of goal setting appear to be well documented in numerous studies: Performance often improves when difficult and specific goals have been set, which does not mean that goal setting techniques will automatically enhance actual school performance, of course, because that will also depend on other factors. One such factor is student perceptions of the consequences of goal setting, especially perception of affective consequences. To the extent that the affective consequences of goal setting are perceived as negative, it should be more difficult to persuade students to commit themselves to difficult and specific goals, no matter what the actual consequences are and even if other expected consequences are favorable. As a conclusion, students' expectations of affective consequences should support rather than disrupt beneficial effects of goal setting on performance and examining the extent to which students have negative affective expectations about goal setting is desired.

==some main research findings in goal setting ==
*specific and challenging goals lead to higher performance than easy goals, "do your best" goals, or no goals.
*A harder task led to better weight-lifting performance than an easier task when subjects were deceived as to the actual weights (Ness & Patton,1979)
*Goals affect performance by directing attention, mobilizing effort, increasing persistence, and motivating strategy development.
*Goal setting is most likely to improve task performance when:
**The goals are specific and sufficiently challenging;
**The subjects have sufficient ability or the ability differences are controlled;
**Feedback is provided to show progress in relation to the goal, rewards such as money are given for goal attainment;
**The experimenter or manager is supportive, and assigned goals are accepted by the individual.
*No reliable individual differences have emerged in goal-setting studies, probably because the goals were typically assigned rather than self-set;
*Error could be reduced by changing initial goals;
*Multiple goals: several tasks may be effectively coordinated through the use of multiple, goal dependent feedback loops
*The choice of initial goals: in many situation, the choice of initial goals is an important determinant of performance, especially when task feedback is slow or when tasks are not repetitive.
*Goals may be set close to levels of past performance on familiar tasks;
*Initial goals may be derived from higher level objectives which are hierarchically organized;
*Initial goals may be externally influenced by social processed such as social comparison of modeling.

==References==

#Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969-1980. Edwin A. Locke, Lise M. Saari, Karyll N. ShawGary P. Latham
#A Control Systems Conceptualization of the Goal-Setting and Changing Process. (1982). Michael A. Campion, Robert G. Lord.
#Goal Commitment and the Goal-Setting Process: Problems, Prospects, and Proposals for Future Research. (1987).John R. Hollenbeck and Howard J. Klein.
#Goal Setting, Achievement Orientation, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meditational Analysis. (1994). Andrew J. Elliot, Judith M. Harackiewicz.
#Achievement Goals in the Classroom: Students' Learning Strategies and Motivation Processes. (1988).Carole Ames, Jennifer Archer.
#Student Expectations about Affective Correlates of Academic Goal Setting. (1991). Frank W. Wicker, Gall Brown, Anastasia S. Hagen, Wayne Boring, James A. Wiehe.

Goal setting and its constructs

2009-04-15T02:32:32Z

Clare.xie: /* Goal commitment */

"Goal" has been defined simply as "something that the person wants to achieve" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 2). Goal setting theory assumes that human action is directed by conscious goals and intentions" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 4). "Goal setting" refers to a specific outcome that an individual is striving to achieve(Dweck, 1992).

==Goal setting==
Goal setting is a process that involves setting up specific objects, measurements and strategy to achieve the goal, which also includes the strategy modification in terms of the feedback or error made.According to earlier research, the two major attributes of goal setting are Content and Intensity(Rand, 1967).

'''Content of a goal''' is mainly talking about "WHAT":the object and final results that people want to achieve, which contains several aspects:1. Goal specificity: how specific and clear the goal is: abstract goal, such as "find a good job", or really clarified goal, such as:"I want to be an interface designer in Microsoft who can be involved in improving 'Microsoft office' series"; 2. Task difficulty: how difficult to reach the goal, which actually includes cognitive process of self-esteem. It's a subjective comparing between the degree of proficiency or level of performance people are seeking and the level of current capability or potential capability that people have, which also involves the estimation of the effort that will take. More investment of effort are predicted, more difficult the goal that people would regard as. There was some arguments about the notion of task difficulty and goal difficulty. According to Locke & Latham's paper in 1981, the terms task difficulty and goal difficulty were often used interchangeably, but normally, goal refers to a final goal in terms of an event, while the tasks included could be sub-goals under the final one or the steps toward the termination of the whole process.

The evidence of a positive, linear relation between goal difficulty and task performance (assuming sufficient ability) was firstly found by Locke (1968), and later studies had supported this finding (Locke & Latham,1981), which says harder goals led to better performance than easy goals under the assumption that people have sufficient ability and further have accurate estimate of the ability. Current research in efficacy found out that students with over-confidence, who over-estimate their ability in terms of their goal setting, would have worse grades comparing to others, which also hurts their post-efficacy. But researcher also found that the outcome could be even worse for the student with self-humiliation. So it might imply that underestimation of the goal difficulty and over-estimation of self-capability may generate better outcome than overestimation of goal difficulty and underestimation of the ability.

Specific hard goals versus "do best" goals or no goals: Previous research found that specific, challenging (difficult) goals elicit higher effort investment and output than vague goals such as "do your best" (Locke, 1968). Subsequent research has strongly supported these results, although in a number of studies, no distinction was made between groups told to do their best and those assigned no specific goals(Locke & Latham,1981).

There are other aspects about multiple goals are goal complexity and goal conflict: Goal Complexity refers to the number and interrelation of the results aimed for, while Goal Conflict refers to the degree to which attaining one goal negates or subverts attaining another.

And '''Intensity of a goal''' is about "HOW", pertaining to the process of setting the goal or of determining how to reach it, which would be measured by such factors as the scope of the cognitive process, the degree of effort required, the importance of the goal, and the context in which it is set(Locke & Latham,1981). Goal intensity is positively related to goal content. For example, a more intense psychological process is needed for setting complex goals and to figure out how to attain them than the process needed to set and attain simple goals.

According to Locke et al's paper in 1981, the concept of goal setting fell within the broad domain of cognitive psychology and is consistent with cognitive behavior modification. The interest of researchers in goal setting at that time had two sources, one academic and the other organizational. The academic source extends back in time from Ryan (1970) and G. Miller, Galanter, and Pribrani (1960), through Lewin, to the Wurzburg School and the associated concepts of intention, task, set, and level of aspiration (see Ryan, 1970, for a summary). The organizational source is traced from Management by Objectives programs, later widely used in industry (see Odiorne, 1978, for a summary). Nowadays, Goal setting is an important componentof social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) in terms of its effect on task performance, while in the industry, lots of online tutorial, management tool and theory are produced based on goal setting components and aim at improving employee's working performance.

==Goal commitment==

Goal commitment is also an important component in goal setting theory. According to Locke et al (1981), it refers to the determination to try for a goal. Commitment implies the extension of effort,toward the accomplishment of an original goal and emphasizes an unwillingness to abandon or to lower the original goal(Campion & Lord, 1982). Goal commitment is basically about how much people would like to stick onto the goal: more important the goal is, more commitment to the goal. Also self-efficacy, pre-investment (how much effort or resource have already been put into achieving the goal)and social environment may also influence the developing of goal commitment. In addition, the emphasis is on commitment to difficult or challenging goals instead of comparably easy or simple goals.

==Feedback==

Feedback was also called knowledge of result in Locke's study (Locke et al.), and attempts were made to separate the effects of feedback (i.e., knowledge of results [KR]) from the effects of goal setting to determine whether KR directly influenced performance or whether its effects were mediated by goal-setting activity (Locke, 1967; Locke & Bryan, 1968, 1969a, 1969b; Locke, Cartledge, & Koeppel, 1968). In the most carefully controlled of these previous studies, all subjects with specific goals also received knowledge of their performance in relation to their goals; individuals in the KR conditions received knowledge of their actual scores presented in such a way as to preclude their use in setting goals. Such knowledge of scores did not lead to better performance than no knowledge of scores. The evidence from these and related studies indicated that knowledge of scores was not sufficient to improve task performance. However, since groups with goals and no KR were not included, these studies did not test the possibility that KR may be a necessary condition for goals to affect performance. These studies were conduct in late 1960s, and in later Power's study(1973), the linkage between goal setting and feedback within control systems was suggested. According to Powers, both goals and task feedback are compared by the mechanism labeled “comparator”. If a sufficiently large discrepancy of error exists, some form of remedial action is triggered. The dependence of the comparator on both goals and feedback is quite consistent with recent goal-setting research demonstrating that neither goals nor feedback, by themselves, significantly affect performance, but the feedback will definitely affect goal-setting or mediate the goal setting for reducing the discrepancy and the error-eliminating response will be initiated. Taking "to do a programming homework" as an example, the student may set up a goal as "spend 1 hour to complete the homework alone", but after half an hour, he notices that there are always errors reported and debugging takes much more time than his prior prediction, so he might want to change the goal into either spending one more hour in this homework or asking for help from peers or TA. Here, error reports from the compiler is the feedback or called knowledge of results that is interpreted to the student, which actually mediate his goal-setting.

Goal setting and feedback are widely believed to affect performance positively through enhancing the information and motivation necessary for work performance (Earley, Northcraft, Lee, & Lituchy, 1990).The performance benefit that goals produce is argued to stem from influencing the effort, persistence, and strategic direction of individual performance ( Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981).

Individual difference in laboratory study had also been looked into in Locke's study in early 1980s, and several variables have been examined: demographic variable (education, sex, age, race, job tenure) and personality variable (need for achievement, need for independence, self-esteem, internal vs. external control), but little significant results are found due to the inconsistent individual differences in the laboratory study (Locke et al. 1981).

==Goal setting’s effect on student’s performance with classroom setting==

'''Student Expectations About Affective Correlates of Academic'''
Performance benefit of goal setting appear to be well documented in numerous studies: Performance often improves when difficult and specific goals have been set, which does not mean that goal setting techniques will automatically enhance actual school performance, of course, because that will also depend on other factors. One such factor is student perceptions of the consequences of goal setting, especially perception of affective consequences. To the extent that the affective consequences of goal setting are perceived as negative, it should be more difficult to persuade students to commit themselves to difficult and specific goals, no matter what the actual consequences are and even if other expected consequences are favorable. As a conclusion, students' expectations of affective consequences should support rather than disrupt beneficial effects of goal setting on performance and examining the extent to which students have negative affective expectations about goal setting is desired.

==some main research findings in goal setting ==
*specific and challenging goals lead to higher performance than easy goals, "do your best" goals, or no goals.
*A harder task led to better weight-lifting performance than an easier task when subjects were deceived as to the actual weights (Ness & Patton,1979)
*Goals affect performance by directing attention, mobilizing effort, increasing persistence, and motivating strategy development.
*Goal setting is most likely to improve task performance when:
**The goals are specific and sufficiently challenging;
**The subjects have sufficient ability or the ability differences are controlled;
**Feedback is provided to show progress in relation to the goal, rewards such as money are given for goal attainment;
**The experimenter or manager is supportive, and assigned goals are accepted by the individual.
*No reliable individual differences have emerged in goal-setting studies, probably because the goals were typically assigned rather than self-set;
*Error could be reduced by changing initial goals;
*Multiple goals: several tasks may be effectively coordinated through the use of multiple, goal dependent feedback loops
*The choice of initial goals: in many situation, the choice of initial goals is an important determinant of performance, especially when task feedback is slow or when tasks are not repetitive.
*Goals may be set close to levels of past performance on familiar tasks;
*Initial goals may be derived from higher level objectives which are hierarchically organized;
*Initial goals may be externally influenced by social processed such as social comparison of modeling.

==References==

#Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969-1980. Edwin A. Locke, Lise M. Saari, Karyll N. ShawGary P. Latham
#A Control Systems Conceptualization of the Goal-Setting and Changing Process. (1982). Michael A. Campion, Robert G. Lord.
#Goal Commitment and the Goal-Setting Process: Problems, Prospects, and Proposals for Future Research. (1987).John R. Hollenbeck and Howard J. Klein.
#Goal Setting, Achievement Orientation, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meditational Analysis. (1994). Andrew J. Elliot, Judith M. Harackiewicz.
#Achievement Goals in the Classroom: Students' Learning Strategies and Motivation Processes. (1988).Carole Ames, Jennifer Archer.
#Student Expectations about Affective Correlates of Academic Goal Setting. (1991). Frank W. Wicker, Gall Brown, Anastasia S. Hagen, Wayne Boring, James A. Wiehe.

Goal setting and its constructs

2009-04-15T02:31:17Z

Clare.xie: /* Goal setting */

"Goal" has been defined simply as "something that the person wants to achieve" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 2). Goal setting theory assumes that human action is directed by conscious goals and intentions" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 4). "Goal setting" refers to a specific outcome that an individual is striving to achieve(Dweck, 1992).

==Goal setting==
Goal setting is a process that involves setting up specific objects, measurements and strategy to achieve the goal, which also includes the strategy modification in terms of the feedback or error made.According to earlier research, the two major attributes of goal setting are Content and Intensity(Rand, 1967).

'''Content of a goal''' is mainly talking about "WHAT":the object and final results that people want to achieve, which contains several aspects:1. Goal specificity: how specific and clear the goal is: abstract goal, such as "find a good job", or really clarified goal, such as:"I want to be an interface designer in Microsoft who can be involved in improving 'Microsoft office' series"; 2. Task difficulty: how difficult to reach the goal, which actually includes cognitive process of self-esteem. It's a subjective comparing between the degree of proficiency or level of performance people are seeking and the level of current capability or potential capability that people have, which also involves the estimation of the effort that will take. More investment of effort are predicted, more difficult the goal that people would regard as. There was some arguments about the notion of task difficulty and goal difficulty. According to Locke & Latham's paper in 1981, the terms task difficulty and goal difficulty were often used interchangeably, but normally, goal refers to a final goal in terms of an event, while the tasks included could be sub-goals under the final one or the steps toward the termination of the whole process.

The evidence of a positive, linear relation between goal difficulty and task performance (assuming sufficient ability) was firstly found by Locke (1968), and later studies had supported this finding (Locke & Latham,1981), which says harder goals led to better performance than easy goals under the assumption that people have sufficient ability and further have accurate estimate of the ability. Current research in efficacy found out that students with over-confidence, who over-estimate their ability in terms of their goal setting, would have worse grades comparing to others, which also hurts their post-efficacy. But researcher also found that the outcome could be even worse for the student with self-humiliation. So it might imply that underestimation of the goal difficulty and over-estimation of self-capability may generate better outcome than overestimation of goal difficulty and underestimation of the ability.

Specific hard goals versus "do best" goals or no goals: Previous research found that specific, challenging (difficult) goals elicit higher effort investment and output than vague goals such as "do your best" (Locke, 1968). Subsequent research has strongly supported these results, although in a number of studies, no distinction was made between groups told to do their best and those assigned no specific goals(Locke & Latham,1981).

There are other aspects about multiple goals are goal complexity and goal conflict: Goal Complexity refers to the number and interrelation of the results aimed for, while Goal Conflict refers to the degree to which attaining one goal negates or subverts attaining another.

And '''Intensity of a goal''' is about "HOW", pertaining to the process of setting the goal or of determining how to reach it, which would be measured by such factors as the scope of the cognitive process, the degree of effort required, the importance of the goal, and the context in which it is set(Locke & Latham,1981). Goal intensity is positively related to goal content. For example, a more intense psychological process is needed for setting complex goals and to figure out how to attain them than the process needed to set and attain simple goals.

According to Locke et al's paper in 1981, the concept of goal setting fell within the broad domain of cognitive psychology and is consistent with cognitive behavior modification. The interest of researchers in goal setting at that time had two sources, one academic and the other organizational. The academic source extends back in time from Ryan (1970) and G. Miller, Galanter, and Pribrani (1960), through Lewin, to the Wurzburg School and the associated concepts of intention, task, set, and level of aspiration (see Ryan, 1970, for a summary). The organizational source is traced from Management by Objectives programs, later widely used in industry (see Odiorne, 1978, for a summary). Nowadays, Goal setting is an important componentof social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) in terms of its effect on task performance, while in the industry, lots of online tutorial, management tool and theory are produced based on goal setting components and aim at improving employee's working performance.

==Goal commitment==

Goal commitment is also an important component in goal setting theory. according to Locke et al (1981), it refers to the determination to try for a goal. Commitment implies the extension of effort,toward the accomplishment of an original goal and emphasizes an unwillingness to abandon or to lower the original goal(Campion & Lord, 1982). Goal commitment is basically about how much people would like to stick onto the goal: more important the goal is, more commitment to the goal. Also self-efficacy, pre-investment (how much effort or resource have already been put into achieving the goal)and social environment may also influence the developing of goal commitment. In addition, the emphasis is on commitment to difficult or challenging goals instead of comparably easy or simple goals.

==Feedback==

Feedback was also called knowledge of result in Locke's study (Locke et al.), and attempts were made to separate the effects of feedback (i.e., knowledge of results [KR]) from the effects of goal setting to determine whether KR directly influenced performance or whether its effects were mediated by goal-setting activity (Locke, 1967; Locke & Bryan, 1968, 1969a, 1969b; Locke, Cartledge, & Koeppel, 1968). In the most carefully controlled of these previous studies, all subjects with specific goals also received knowledge of their performance in relation to their goals; individuals in the KR conditions received knowledge of their actual scores presented in such a way as to preclude their use in setting goals. Such knowledge of scores did not lead to better performance than no knowledge of scores. The evidence from these and related studies indicated that knowledge of scores was not sufficient to improve task performance. However, since groups with goals and no KR were not included, these studies did not test the possibility that KR may be a necessary condition for goals to affect performance. These studies were conduct in late 1960s, and in later Power's study(1973), the linkage between goal setting and feedback within control systems was suggested. According to Powers, both goals and task feedback are compared by the mechanism labeled “comparator”. If a sufficiently large discrepancy of error exists, some form of remedial action is triggered. The dependence of the comparator on both goals and feedback is quite consistent with recent goal-setting research demonstrating that neither goals nor feedback, by themselves, significantly affect performance, but the feedback will definitely affect goal-setting or mediate the goal setting for reducing the discrepancy and the error-eliminating response will be initiated. Taking "to do a programming homework" as an example, the student may set up a goal as "spend 1 hour to complete the homework alone", but after half an hour, he notices that there are always errors reported and debugging takes much more time than his prior prediction, so he might want to change the goal into either spending one more hour in this homework or asking for help from peers or TA. Here, error reports from the compiler is the feedback or called knowledge of results that is interpreted to the student, which actually mediate his goal-setting.

Goal setting and feedback are widely believed to affect performance positively through enhancing the information and motivation necessary for work performance (Earley, Northcraft, Lee, & Lituchy, 1990).The performance benefit that goals produce is argued to stem from influencing the effort, persistence, and strategic direction of individual performance ( Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981).

Individual difference in laboratory study had also been looked into in Locke's study in early 1980s, and several variables have been examined: demographic variable (education, sex, age, race, job tenure) and personality variable (need for achievement, need for independence, self-esteem, internal vs. external control), but little significant results are found due to the inconsistent individual differences in the laboratory study (Locke et al. 1981).

==Goal setting’s effect on student’s performance with classroom setting==

'''Student Expectations About Affective Correlates of Academic'''
Performance benefit of goal setting appear to be well documented in numerous studies: Performance often improves when difficult and specific goals have been set, which does not mean that goal setting techniques will automatically enhance actual school performance, of course, because that will also depend on other factors. One such factor is student perceptions of the consequences of goal setting, especially perception of affective consequences. To the extent that the affective consequences of goal setting are perceived as negative, it should be more difficult to persuade students to commit themselves to difficult and specific goals, no matter what the actual consequences are and even if other expected consequences are favorable. As a conclusion, students' expectations of affective consequences should support rather than disrupt beneficial effects of goal setting on performance and examining the extent to which students have negative affective expectations about goal setting is desired.

==some main research findings in goal setting ==
*specific and challenging goals lead to higher performance than easy goals, "do your best" goals, or no goals.
*A harder task led to better weight-lifting performance than an easier task when subjects were deceived as to the actual weights (Ness & Patton,1979)
*Goals affect performance by directing attention, mobilizing effort, increasing persistence, and motivating strategy development.
*Goal setting is most likely to improve task performance when:
**The goals are specific and sufficiently challenging;
**The subjects have sufficient ability or the ability differences are controlled;
**Feedback is provided to show progress in relation to the goal, rewards such as money are given for goal attainment;
**The experimenter or manager is supportive, and assigned goals are accepted by the individual.
*No reliable individual differences have emerged in goal-setting studies, probably because the goals were typically assigned rather than self-set;
*Error could be reduced by changing initial goals;
*Multiple goals: several tasks may be effectively coordinated through the use of multiple, goal dependent feedback loops
*The choice of initial goals: in many situation, the choice of initial goals is an important determinant of performance, especially when task feedback is slow or when tasks are not repetitive.
*Goals may be set close to levels of past performance on familiar tasks;
*Initial goals may be derived from higher level objectives which are hierarchically organized;
*Initial goals may be externally influenced by social processed such as social comparison of modeling.

==References==

#Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969-1980. Edwin A. Locke, Lise M. Saari, Karyll N. ShawGary P. Latham
#A Control Systems Conceptualization of the Goal-Setting and Changing Process. (1982). Michael A. Campion, Robert G. Lord.
#Goal Commitment and the Goal-Setting Process: Problems, Prospects, and Proposals for Future Research. (1987).John R. Hollenbeck and Howard J. Klein.
#Goal Setting, Achievement Orientation, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meditational Analysis. (1994). Andrew J. Elliot, Judith M. Harackiewicz.
#Achievement Goals in the Classroom: Students' Learning Strategies and Motivation Processes. (1988).Carole Ames, Jennifer Archer.
#Student Expectations about Affective Correlates of Academic Goal Setting. (1991). Frank W. Wicker, Gall Brown, Anastasia S. Hagen, Wayne Boring, James A. Wiehe.

Goal setting and its constructs

2009-04-15T02:30:56Z

Clare.xie: /* Goal setting */

"Goal" has been defined simply as "something that the person wants to achieve" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 2). Goal setting theory assumes that human action is directed by conscious goals and intentions" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 4). "Goal setting" refers to a specific outcome that an individual is striving to achieve(Dweck, 1992).

==Goal setting==
Goal setting is a process that involves setting up specific objects, measurements and strategy to achieve the goal, which also includes the strategy modification in terms of the feedback or error made.According to earlier research, the two major attributes of goal setting are Content and Intensity(Rand, 1967).

The '''content of a goal''' is mainly talking about "WHAT":the object and final results that people want to achieve, which contains several aspects:1. Goal specificity: how specific and clear the goal is: abstract goal, such as "find a good job", or really clarified goal, such as:"I want to be an interface designer in Microsoft who can be involved in improving 'Microsoft office' series"; 2. Task difficulty: how difficult to reach the goal, which actually includes cognitive process of self-esteem. It's a subjective comparing between the degree of proficiency or level of performance people are seeking and the level of current capability or potential capability that people have, which also involves the estimation of the effort that will take. More investment of effort are predicted, more difficult the goal that people would regard as. There was some arguments about the notion of task difficulty and goal difficulty. According to Locke & Latham's paper in 1981, the terms task difficulty and goal difficulty were often used interchangeably, but normally, goal refers to a final goal in terms of an event, while the tasks included could be sub-goals under the final one or the steps toward the termination of the whole process.

The evidence of a positive, linear relation between goal difficulty and task performance (assuming sufficient ability) was firstly found by Locke (1968), and later studies had supported this finding (Locke & Latham,1981), which says harder goals led to better performance than easy goals under the assumption that people have sufficient ability and further have accurate estimate of the ability. Current research in efficacy found out that students with over-confidence, who over-estimate their ability in terms of their goal setting, would have worse grades comparing to others, which also hurts their post-efficacy. But researcher also found that the outcome could be even worse for the student with self-humiliation. So it might imply that underestimation of the goal difficulty and over-estimation of self-capability may generate better outcome than overestimation of goal difficulty and underestimation of the ability.

Specific hard goals versus "do best" goals or no goals: Previous research found that specific, challenging (difficult) goals elicit higher effort investment and output than vague goals such as "do your best" (Locke, 1968). Subsequent research has strongly supported these results, although in a number of studies, no distinction was made between groups told to do their best and those assigned no specific goals(Locke & Latham,1981).

There are other aspects about multiple goals are goal complexity and goal conflict: Goal Complexity refers to the number and interrelation of the results aimed for, while Goal Conflict refers to the degree to which attaining one goal negates or subverts attaining another.

And '''Intensity of a goal''' is about "HOW", pertaining to the process of setting the goal or of determining how to reach it, which would be measured by such factors as the scope of the cognitive process, the degree of effort required, the importance of the goal, and the context in which it is set(Locke & Latham,1981). Goal intensity is positively related to goal content. For example, a more intense psychological process is needed for setting complex goals and to figure out how to attain them than the process needed to set and attain simple goals.

According to Locke et al's paper in 1981, the concept of goal setting fell within the broad domain of cognitive psychology and is consistent with cognitive behavior modification. The interest of researchers in goal setting at that time had two sources, one academic and the other organizational. The academic source extends back in time from Ryan (1970) and G. Miller, Galanter, and Pribrani (1960), through Lewin, to the Wurzburg School and the associated concepts of intention, task, set, and level of aspiration (see Ryan, 1970, for a summary). The organizational source is traced from Management by Objectives programs, later widely used in industry (see Odiorne, 1978, for a summary). Nowadays, Goal setting is an important componentof social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) in terms of its effect on task performance, while in the industry, lots of online tutorial, management tool and theory are produced based on goal setting components and aim at improving employee's working performance.

==Goal commitment==

Goal commitment is also an important component in goal setting theory. according to Locke et al (1981), it refers to the determination to try for a goal. Commitment implies the extension of effort,toward the accomplishment of an original goal and emphasizes an unwillingness to abandon or to lower the original goal(Campion & Lord, 1982). Goal commitment is basically about how much people would like to stick onto the goal: more important the goal is, more commitment to the goal. Also self-efficacy, pre-investment (how much effort or resource have already been put into achieving the goal)and social environment may also influence the developing of goal commitment. In addition, the emphasis is on commitment to difficult or challenging goals instead of comparably easy or simple goals.

==Feedback==

Feedback was also called knowledge of result in Locke's study (Locke et al.), and attempts were made to separate the effects of feedback (i.e., knowledge of results [KR]) from the effects of goal setting to determine whether KR directly influenced performance or whether its effects were mediated by goal-setting activity (Locke, 1967; Locke & Bryan, 1968, 1969a, 1969b; Locke, Cartledge, & Koeppel, 1968). In the most carefully controlled of these previous studies, all subjects with specific goals also received knowledge of their performance in relation to their goals; individuals in the KR conditions received knowledge of their actual scores presented in such a way as to preclude their use in setting goals. Such knowledge of scores did not lead to better performance than no knowledge of scores. The evidence from these and related studies indicated that knowledge of scores was not sufficient to improve task performance. However, since groups with goals and no KR were not included, these studies did not test the possibility that KR may be a necessary condition for goals to affect performance. These studies were conduct in late 1960s, and in later Power's study(1973), the linkage between goal setting and feedback within control systems was suggested. According to Powers, both goals and task feedback are compared by the mechanism labeled “comparator”. If a sufficiently large discrepancy of error exists, some form of remedial action is triggered. The dependence of the comparator on both goals and feedback is quite consistent with recent goal-setting research demonstrating that neither goals nor feedback, by themselves, significantly affect performance, but the feedback will definitely affect goal-setting or mediate the goal setting for reducing the discrepancy and the error-eliminating response will be initiated. Taking "to do a programming homework" as an example, the student may set up a goal as "spend 1 hour to complete the homework alone", but after half an hour, he notices that there are always errors reported and debugging takes much more time than his prior prediction, so he might want to change the goal into either spending one more hour in this homework or asking for help from peers or TA. Here, error reports from the compiler is the feedback or called knowledge of results that is interpreted to the student, which actually mediate his goal-setting.

Goal setting and feedback are widely believed to affect performance positively through enhancing the information and motivation necessary for work performance (Earley, Northcraft, Lee, & Lituchy, 1990).The performance benefit that goals produce is argued to stem from influencing the effort, persistence, and strategic direction of individual performance ( Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981).

Individual difference in laboratory study had also been looked into in Locke's study in early 1980s, and several variables have been examined: demographic variable (education, sex, age, race, job tenure) and personality variable (need for achievement, need for independence, self-esteem, internal vs. external control), but little significant results are found due to the inconsistent individual differences in the laboratory study (Locke et al. 1981).

==Goal setting’s effect on student’s performance with classroom setting==

'''Student Expectations About Affective Correlates of Academic'''
Performance benefit of goal setting appear to be well documented in numerous studies: Performance often improves when difficult and specific goals have been set, which does not mean that goal setting techniques will automatically enhance actual school performance, of course, because that will also depend on other factors. One such factor is student perceptions of the consequences of goal setting, especially perception of affective consequences. To the extent that the affective consequences of goal setting are perceived as negative, it should be more difficult to persuade students to commit themselves to difficult and specific goals, no matter what the actual consequences are and even if other expected consequences are favorable. As a conclusion, students' expectations of affective consequences should support rather than disrupt beneficial effects of goal setting on performance and examining the extent to which students have negative affective expectations about goal setting is desired.

==some main research findings in goal setting ==
*specific and challenging goals lead to higher performance than easy goals, "do your best" goals, or no goals.
*A harder task led to better weight-lifting performance than an easier task when subjects were deceived as to the actual weights (Ness & Patton,1979)
*Goals affect performance by directing attention, mobilizing effort, increasing persistence, and motivating strategy development.
*Goal setting is most likely to improve task performance when:
**The goals are specific and sufficiently challenging;
**The subjects have sufficient ability or the ability differences are controlled;
**Feedback is provided to show progress in relation to the goal, rewards such as money are given for goal attainment;
**The experimenter or manager is supportive, and assigned goals are accepted by the individual.
*No reliable individual differences have emerged in goal-setting studies, probably because the goals were typically assigned rather than self-set;
*Error could be reduced by changing initial goals;
*Multiple goals: several tasks may be effectively coordinated through the use of multiple, goal dependent feedback loops
*The choice of initial goals: in many situation, the choice of initial goals is an important determinant of performance, especially when task feedback is slow or when tasks are not repetitive.
*Goals may be set close to levels of past performance on familiar tasks;
*Initial goals may be derived from higher level objectives which are hierarchically organized;
*Initial goals may be externally influenced by social processed such as social comparison of modeling.

==References==

#Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969-1980. Edwin A. Locke, Lise M. Saari, Karyll N. ShawGary P. Latham
#A Control Systems Conceptualization of the Goal-Setting and Changing Process. (1982). Michael A. Campion, Robert G. Lord.
#Goal Commitment and the Goal-Setting Process: Problems, Prospects, and Proposals for Future Research. (1987).John R. Hollenbeck and Howard J. Klein.
#Goal Setting, Achievement Orientation, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meditational Analysis. (1994). Andrew J. Elliot, Judith M. Harackiewicz.
#Achievement Goals in the Classroom: Students' Learning Strategies and Motivation Processes. (1988).Carole Ames, Jennifer Archer.
#Student Expectations about Affective Correlates of Academic Goal Setting. (1991). Frank W. Wicker, Gall Brown, Anastasia S. Hagen, Wayne Boring, James A. Wiehe.

Goal setting and its constructs

2009-04-15T02:29:51Z

Clare.xie: /* Summary of main research findings in goal setting */

"Goal" has been defined simply as "something that the person wants to achieve" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 2). Goal setting theory assumes that human action is directed by conscious goals and intentions" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 4). "Goal setting" refers to a specific outcome that an individual is striving to achieve(Dweck, 1992).

==Goal setting==
Goal setting is a process that involves setting up specific objects, measurements and strategy to achieve the goal, which also includes the strategy modification in terms of the feedback or error made.According to earlier research, the two major attributes of goal setting are Content and Intensity(Rand, 1967).

The '''content of a goal''' is mainly talking about "WHAT":the object and final results that people want to achieve, which contains several aspects:1. Goal specificity: how specific and clear the goal is: abstract goal, such as "find a good job", or really clarified goal, such as:"I want to be an interface designer in Microsoft who can be involved in improving 'Microsoft office' series"; 2. Task difficulty: how difficult to reach the goal, which actually includes cognitive process of self-esteem. It's a subjective comparing between the degree of proficiency or level of performance people are seeking and the level of current capability or potential capability that people have, which also involves the estimation of the effort that will take. More investment of effort are predicted, more difficult the goal that people would regard as. There was some arguments about the notion of task difficulty and goal difficulty. According to Locke & Latham's paper in 1981, the terms task difficulty and goal difficulty were often used interchangeably, but normally, goal refers to a final goal in terms of an event, while the tasks included could be sub-goals under the final one or the steps toward the termination of the whole process.

The evidence of a positive, linear relation between goal difficulty and task performance (assuming sufficient ability) was firstly found by Locke (1968), and later studies had supported this finding (Locke & Latham,1981), which says harder goals led to better performance than easy goals under the assumption that people have sufficient ability and further have accurate estimate of the ability. Current research in efficacy found out that students with over-confidence, who over-estimate their ability in terms of their goal setting, would have worse grades comparing to others, which also hurts their post-efficacy. But researcher also found that the outcome could be even worse for the student with self-humiliation. So it might imply that underestimation of the goal difficulty and over-estimation of self-capability may generate better outcome than overestimation of goal difficulty and underestimation of the ability.

Specific hard goals versus "do best" goals or no goals: Previous research found that specific, challenging (difficult) goals elicit higher effort investment and output than vague goals such as "do your best" (Locke, 1968). Subsequent research has strongly supported these results, although in a number of studies, no distinction was made between groups told to do their best and those assigned no specific goals(Locke & Latham,1981).

There are other aspects about multiple goals are goal complexity and goal conflict: Goal Complexity refers to the number and interrelation of the results aimed for, while Goal Conflict refers to the degree to which attaining one goal negates or subverts attaining another.

And '''Intensity of a goal'''is about "HOW", pertaining to the process of setting the goal or of determining how to reach it, which would be measured by such factors as the scope of the cognitive process, the degree of effort required, the importance of the goal, and the context in which it is set(Locke & Latham,1981). Goal intensity is positively related to goal content. For example, a more intense psychological process is needed for setting complex goals and to figure out how to attain them than the process needed to set and attain simple goals.

According to Locke et al's paper in 1981, the concept of goal setting fell within the broad domain of cognitive psychology and is consistent with cognitive behavior modification. The interest of researchers in goal setting at that time had two sources, one academic and the other organizational. The academic source extends back in time from Ryan (1970) and G. Miller, Galanter, and Pribrani (1960), through Lewin, to the Wurzburg School and the associated concepts of intention, task, set, and level of aspiration (see Ryan, 1970, for a summary). The organizational source is traced from Management by Objectives programs, later widely used in industry (see Odiorne, 1978, for a summary). Nowadays, Goal setting is an important componentof social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) in terms of its effect on task performance, while in the industry, lots of online tutorial, management tool and theory are produced based on goal setting components and aim at improving employee's working performance.

==Goal commitment==

Goal commitment is also an important component in goal setting theory. according to Locke et al (1981), it refers to the determination to try for a goal. Commitment implies the extension of effort,toward the accomplishment of an original goal and emphasizes an unwillingness to abandon or to lower the original goal(Campion & Lord, 1982). Goal commitment is basically about how much people would like to stick onto the goal: more important the goal is, more commitment to the goal. Also self-efficacy, pre-investment (how much effort or resource have already been put into achieving the goal)and social environment may also influence the developing of goal commitment. In addition, the emphasis is on commitment to difficult or challenging goals instead of comparably easy or simple goals.

==Feedback==

Feedback was also called knowledge of result in Locke's study (Locke et al.), and attempts were made to separate the effects of feedback (i.e., knowledge of results [KR]) from the effects of goal setting to determine whether KR directly influenced performance or whether its effects were mediated by goal-setting activity (Locke, 1967; Locke & Bryan, 1968, 1969a, 1969b; Locke, Cartledge, & Koeppel, 1968). In the most carefully controlled of these previous studies, all subjects with specific goals also received knowledge of their performance in relation to their goals; individuals in the KR conditions received knowledge of their actual scores presented in such a way as to preclude their use in setting goals. Such knowledge of scores did not lead to better performance than no knowledge of scores. The evidence from these and related studies indicated that knowledge of scores was not sufficient to improve task performance. However, since groups with goals and no KR were not included, these studies did not test the possibility that KR may be a necessary condition for goals to affect performance. These studies were conduct in late 1960s, and in later Power's study(1973), the linkage between goal setting and feedback within control systems was suggested. According to Powers, both goals and task feedback are compared by the mechanism labeled “comparator”. If a sufficiently large discrepancy of error exists, some form of remedial action is triggered. The dependence of the comparator on both goals and feedback is quite consistent with recent goal-setting research demonstrating that neither goals nor feedback, by themselves, significantly affect performance, but the feedback will definitely affect goal-setting or mediate the goal setting for reducing the discrepancy and the error-eliminating response will be initiated. Taking "to do a programming homework" as an example, the student may set up a goal as "spend 1 hour to complete the homework alone", but after half an hour, he notices that there are always errors reported and debugging takes much more time than his prior prediction, so he might want to change the goal into either spending one more hour in this homework or asking for help from peers or TA. Here, error reports from the compiler is the feedback or called knowledge of results that is interpreted to the student, which actually mediate his goal-setting.

Goal setting and feedback are widely believed to affect performance positively through enhancing the information and motivation necessary for work performance (Earley, Northcraft, Lee, & Lituchy, 1990).The performance benefit that goals produce is argued to stem from influencing the effort, persistence, and strategic direction of individual performance ( Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981).

Individual difference in laboratory study had also been looked into in Locke's study in early 1980s, and several variables have been examined: demographic variable (education, sex, age, race, job tenure) and personality variable (need for achievement, need for independence, self-esteem, internal vs. external control), but little significant results are found due to the inconsistent individual differences in the laboratory study (Locke et al. 1981).

==Goal setting’s effect on student’s performance with classroom setting==

'''Student Expectations About Affective Correlates of Academic'''
Performance benefit of goal setting appear to be well documented in numerous studies: Performance often improves when difficult and specific goals have been set, which does not mean that goal setting techniques will automatically enhance actual school performance, of course, because that will also depend on other factors. One such factor is student perceptions of the consequences of goal setting, especially perception of affective consequences. To the extent that the affective consequences of goal setting are perceived as negative, it should be more difficult to persuade students to commit themselves to difficult and specific goals, no matter what the actual consequences are and even if other expected consequences are favorable. As a conclusion, students' expectations of affective consequences should support rather than disrupt beneficial effects of goal setting on performance and examining the extent to which students have negative affective expectations about goal setting is desired.

==some main research findings in goal setting ==
*specific and challenging goals lead to higher performance than easy goals, "do your best" goals, or no goals.
*A harder task led to better weight-lifting performance than an easier task when subjects were deceived as to the actual weights (Ness & Patton,1979)
*Goals affect performance by directing attention, mobilizing effort, increasing persistence, and motivating strategy development.
*Goal setting is most likely to improve task performance when:
**The goals are specific and sufficiently challenging;
**The subjects have sufficient ability or the ability differences are controlled;
**Feedback is provided to show progress in relation to the goal, rewards such as money are given for goal attainment;
**The experimenter or manager is supportive, and assigned goals are accepted by the individual.
*No reliable individual differences have emerged in goal-setting studies, probably because the goals were typically assigned rather than self-set;
*Error could be reduced by changing initial goals;
*Multiple goals: several tasks may be effectively coordinated through the use of multiple, goal dependent feedback loops
*The choice of initial goals: in many situation, the choice of initial goals is an important determinant of performance, especially when task feedback is slow or when tasks are not repetitive.
*Goals may be set close to levels of past performance on familiar tasks;
*Initial goals may be derived from higher level objectives which are hierarchically organized;
*Initial goals may be externally influenced by social processed such as social comparison of modeling.

==References==

#Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969-1980. Edwin A. Locke, Lise M. Saari, Karyll N. ShawGary P. Latham
#A Control Systems Conceptualization of the Goal-Setting and Changing Process. (1982). Michael A. Campion, Robert G. Lord.
#Goal Commitment and the Goal-Setting Process: Problems, Prospects, and Proposals for Future Research. (1987).John R. Hollenbeck and Howard J. Klein.
#Goal Setting, Achievement Orientation, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meditational Analysis. (1994). Andrew J. Elliot, Judith M. Harackiewicz.
#Achievement Goals in the Classroom: Students' Learning Strategies and Motivation Processes. (1988).Carole Ames, Jennifer Archer.
#Student Expectations about Affective Correlates of Academic Goal Setting. (1991). Frank W. Wicker, Gall Brown, Anastasia S. Hagen, Wayne Boring, James A. Wiehe.

Goal setting and its constructs

2009-04-15T02:26:11Z

Clare.xie: /* Goal commitment */

"Goal" has been defined simply as "something that the person wants to achieve" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 2). Goal setting theory assumes that human action is directed by conscious goals and intentions" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 4). "Goal setting" refers to a specific outcome that an individual is striving to achieve(Dweck, 1992).

==Goal setting==
Goal setting is a process that involves setting up specific objects, measurements and strategy to achieve the goal, which also includes the strategy modification in terms of the feedback or error made.According to earlier research, the two major attributes of goal setting are Content and Intensity(Rand, 1967).

The '''content of a goal''' is mainly talking about "WHAT":the object and final results that people want to achieve, which contains several aspects:1. Goal specificity: how specific and clear the goal is: abstract goal, such as "find a good job", or really clarified goal, such as:"I want to be an interface designer in Microsoft who can be involved in improving 'Microsoft office' series"; 2. Task difficulty: how difficult to reach the goal, which actually includes cognitive process of self-esteem. It's a subjective comparing between the degree of proficiency or level of performance people are seeking and the level of current capability or potential capability that people have, which also involves the estimation of the effort that will take. More investment of effort are predicted, more difficult the goal that people would regard as. There was some arguments about the notion of task difficulty and goal difficulty. According to Locke & Latham's paper in 1981, the terms task difficulty and goal difficulty were often used interchangeably, but normally, goal refers to a final goal in terms of an event, while the tasks included could be sub-goals under the final one or the steps toward the termination of the whole process.

The evidence of a positive, linear relation between goal difficulty and task performance (assuming sufficient ability) was firstly found by Locke (1968), and later studies had supported this finding (Locke & Latham,1981), which says harder goals led to better performance than easy goals under the assumption that people have sufficient ability and further have accurate estimate of the ability. Current research in efficacy found out that students with over-confidence, who over-estimate their ability in terms of their goal setting, would have worse grades comparing to others, which also hurts their post-efficacy. But researcher also found that the outcome could be even worse for the student with self-humiliation. So it might imply that underestimation of the goal difficulty and over-estimation of self-capability may generate better outcome than overestimation of goal difficulty and underestimation of the ability.

Specific hard goals versus "do best" goals or no goals: Previous research found that specific, challenging (difficult) goals elicit higher effort investment and output than vague goals such as "do your best" (Locke, 1968). Subsequent research has strongly supported these results, although in a number of studies, no distinction was made between groups told to do their best and those assigned no specific goals(Locke & Latham,1981).

There are other aspects about multiple goals are goal complexity and goal conflict: Goal Complexity refers to the number and interrelation of the results aimed for, while Goal Conflict refers to the degree to which attaining one goal negates or subverts attaining another.

And '''Intensity of a goal'''is about "HOW", pertaining to the process of setting the goal or of determining how to reach it, which would be measured by such factors as the scope of the cognitive process, the degree of effort required, the importance of the goal, and the context in which it is set(Locke & Latham,1981). Goal intensity is positively related to goal content. For example, a more intense psychological process is needed for setting complex goals and to figure out how to attain them than the process needed to set and attain simple goals.

According to Locke et al's paper in 1981, the concept of goal setting fell within the broad domain of cognitive psychology and is consistent with cognitive behavior modification. The interest of researchers in goal setting at that time had two sources, one academic and the other organizational. The academic source extends back in time from Ryan (1970) and G. Miller, Galanter, and Pribrani (1960), through Lewin, to the Wurzburg School and the associated concepts of intention, task, set, and level of aspiration (see Ryan, 1970, for a summary). The organizational source is traced from Management by Objectives programs, later widely used in industry (see Odiorne, 1978, for a summary). Nowadays, Goal setting is an important componentof social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) in terms of its effect on task performance, while in the industry, lots of online tutorial, management tool and theory are produced based on goal setting components and aim at improving employee's working performance.

==Goal commitment==

Goal commitment is also an important component in goal setting theory. according to Locke et al (1981), it refers to the determination to try for a goal. Commitment implies the extension of effort,toward the accomplishment of an original goal and emphasizes an unwillingness to abandon or to lower the original goal(Campion & Lord, 1982). Goal commitment is basically about how much people would like to stick onto the goal: more important the goal is, more commitment to the goal. Also self-efficacy, pre-investment (how much effort or resource have already been put into achieving the goal)and social environment may also influence the developing of goal commitment. In addition, the emphasis is on commitment to difficult or challenging goals instead of comparably easy or simple goals.

==Feedback==

Feedback was also called knowledge of result in Locke's study (Locke et al.), and attempts were made to separate the effects of feedback (i.e., knowledge of results [KR]) from the effects of goal setting to determine whether KR directly influenced performance or whether its effects were mediated by goal-setting activity (Locke, 1967; Locke & Bryan, 1968, 1969a, 1969b; Locke, Cartledge, & Koeppel, 1968). In the most carefully controlled of these previous studies, all subjects with specific goals also received knowledge of their performance in relation to their goals; individuals in the KR conditions received knowledge of their actual scores presented in such a way as to preclude their use in setting goals. Such knowledge of scores did not lead to better performance than no knowledge of scores. The evidence from these and related studies indicated that knowledge of scores was not sufficient to improve task performance. However, since groups with goals and no KR were not included, these studies did not test the possibility that KR may be a necessary condition for goals to affect performance. These studies were conduct in late 1960s, and in later Power's study(1973), the linkage between goal setting and feedback within control systems was suggested. According to Powers, both goals and task feedback are compared by the mechanism labeled “comparator”. If a sufficiently large discrepancy of error exists, some form of remedial action is triggered. The dependence of the comparator on both goals and feedback is quite consistent with recent goal-setting research demonstrating that neither goals nor feedback, by themselves, significantly affect performance, but the feedback will definitely affect goal-setting or mediate the goal setting for reducing the discrepancy and the error-eliminating response will be initiated. Taking "to do a programming homework" as an example, the student may set up a goal as "spend 1 hour to complete the homework alone", but after half an hour, he notices that there are always errors reported and debugging takes much more time than his prior prediction, so he might want to change the goal into either spending one more hour in this homework or asking for help from peers or TA. Here, error reports from the compiler is the feedback or called knowledge of results that is interpreted to the student, which actually mediate his goal-setting.

Goal setting and feedback are widely believed to affect performance positively through enhancing the information and motivation necessary for work performance (Earley, Northcraft, Lee, & Lituchy, 1990).The performance benefit that goals produce is argued to stem from influencing the effort, persistence, and strategic direction of individual performance ( Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981).

Individual difference in laboratory study had also been looked into in Locke's study in early 1980s, and several variables have been examined: demographic variable (education, sex, age, race, job tenure) and personality variable (need for achievement, need for independence, self-esteem, internal vs. external control), but little significant results are found due to the inconsistent individual differences in the laboratory study (Locke et al. 1981).

==Goal setting’s effect on student’s performance with classroom setting==

'''Student Expectations About Affective Correlates of Academic'''
Performance benefit of goal setting appear to be well documented in numerous studies: Performance often improves when difficult and specific goals have been set, which does not mean that goal setting techniques will automatically enhance actual school performance, of course, because that will also depend on other factors. One such factor is student perceptions of the consequences of goal setting, especially perception of affective consequences. To the extent that the affective consequences of goal setting are perceived as negative, it should be more difficult to persuade students to commit themselves to difficult and specific goals, no matter what the actual consequences are and even if other expected consequences are favorable. As a conclusion, students' expectations of affective consequences should support rather than disrupt beneficial effects of goal setting on performance and examining the extent to which students have negative affective expectations about goal setting is desired.

==Summary of main research findings in goal setting ==
*A review of both laboratory and field studies on the effects of setting goals when performing a task found that in 90% of the studies: specific and challenging goals lead to higher performance than easy goals, "do your best" goals, or no goals. [task difficulty, goal specificity]
*A harder task led to better weight-lifting performance than an easier task when subjects were deceived as to the actual weights (Ness & Patton,1979) [task difficulty]
*Goals affect performance by directing attention, mobilizing effort, increasing persistence, and motivating strategy development.
*Goal setting is most likely to improve task performance when:
**The goals are specific and sufficiently challenging;
**The subjects have sufficient ability (and ability differences are controlled);
**Feedback is provided to show progress in relation to the goal, rewards such as money are given for goal attainment;
**The experimenter or manager is supportive, and assigned goals are accepted by the individual.
*No reliable individual differences have emerged in goal-setting studies, probably because the goals were typically assigned rather than self-set.( Need for achievement and self-esteem may be the most promising individual difference variables)
*Error could be reduced by changing initial goals
*Multiple goals: several tasks may be effectively coordinated through the use of multiple, goal dependent feedback loops
*The choice of initial goals: in many situation, the choice of initial goals is an important determinant of performance, especially when task feedback is slow or when tasks are not repetitive.
*Goals may be set close to levels of past performance on familiar tasks.
*Initial goals may be derived from higher level objectives which are hierarchically organized
*Initial goals may be externally influenced by social processed such as social comparison of modeling.

==References==

#Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969-1980. Edwin A. Locke, Lise M. Saari, Karyll N. ShawGary P. Latham
#A Control Systems Conceptualization of the Goal-Setting and Changing Process. (1982). Michael A. Campion, Robert G. Lord.
#Goal Commitment and the Goal-Setting Process: Problems, Prospects, and Proposals for Future Research. (1987).John R. Hollenbeck and Howard J. Klein.
#Goal Setting, Achievement Orientation, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meditational Analysis. (1994). Andrew J. Elliot, Judith M. Harackiewicz.
#Achievement Goals in the Classroom: Students' Learning Strategies and Motivation Processes. (1988).Carole Ames, Jennifer Archer.
#Student Expectations about Affective Correlates of Academic Goal Setting. (1991). Frank W. Wicker, Gall Brown, Anastasia S. Hagen, Wayne Boring, James A. Wiehe.

Goal setting and its constructs

2009-04-15T02:23:23Z

Clare.xie:

"Goal" has been defined simply as "something that the person wants to achieve" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 2). Goal setting theory assumes that human action is directed by conscious goals and intentions" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 4). "Goal setting" refers to a specific outcome that an individual is striving to achieve(Dweck, 1992).

==Goal setting==
Goal setting is a process that involves setting up specific objects, measurements and strategy to achieve the goal, which also includes the strategy modification in terms of the feedback or error made.According to earlier research, the two major attributes of goal setting are Content and Intensity(Rand, 1967).

The '''content of a goal''' is mainly talking about "WHAT":the object and final results that people want to achieve, which contains several aspects:1. Goal specificity: how specific and clear the goal is: abstract goal, such as "find a good job", or really clarified goal, such as:"I want to be an interface designer in Microsoft who can be involved in improving 'Microsoft office' series"; 2. Task difficulty: how difficult to reach the goal, which actually includes cognitive process of self-esteem. It's a subjective comparing between the degree of proficiency or level of performance people are seeking and the level of current capability or potential capability that people have, which also involves the estimation of the effort that will take. More investment of effort are predicted, more difficult the goal that people would regard as. There was some arguments about the notion of task difficulty and goal difficulty. According to Locke & Latham's paper in 1981, the terms task difficulty and goal difficulty were often used interchangeably, but normally, goal refers to a final goal in terms of an event, while the tasks included could be sub-goals under the final one or the steps toward the termination of the whole process.

The evidence of a positive, linear relation between goal difficulty and task performance (assuming sufficient ability) was firstly found by Locke (1968), and later studies had supported this finding (Locke & Latham,1981), which says harder goals led to better performance than easy goals under the assumption that people have sufficient ability and further have accurate estimate of the ability. Current research in efficacy found out that students with over-confidence, who over-estimate their ability in terms of their goal setting, would have worse grades comparing to others, which also hurts their post-efficacy. But researcher also found that the outcome could be even worse for the student with self-humiliation. So it might imply that underestimation of the goal difficulty and over-estimation of self-capability may generate better outcome than overestimation of goal difficulty and underestimation of the ability.

Specific hard goals versus "do best" goals or no goals: Previous research found that specific, challenging (difficult) goals elicit higher effort investment and output than vague goals such as "do your best" (Locke, 1968). Subsequent research has strongly supported these results, although in a number of studies, no distinction was made between groups told to do their best and those assigned no specific goals(Locke & Latham,1981).

There are other aspects about multiple goals are goal complexity and goal conflict: Goal Complexity refers to the number and interrelation of the results aimed for, while Goal Conflict refers to the degree to which attaining one goal negates or subverts attaining another.

And '''Intensity of a goal'''is about "HOW", pertaining to the process of setting the goal or of determining how to reach it, which would be measured by such factors as the scope of the cognitive process, the degree of effort required, the importance of the goal, and the context in which it is set(Locke & Latham,1981). Goal intensity is positively related to goal content. For example, a more intense psychological process is needed for setting complex goals and to figure out how to attain them than the process needed to set and attain simple goals.

According to Locke et al's paper in 1981, the concept of goal setting fell within the broad domain of cognitive psychology and is consistent with cognitive behavior modification. The interest of researchers in goal setting at that time had two sources, one academic and the other organizational. The academic source extends back in time from Ryan (1970) and G. Miller, Galanter, and Pribrani (1960), through Lewin, to the Wurzburg School and the associated concepts of intention, task, set, and level of aspiration (see Ryan, 1970, for a summary). The organizational source is traced from Management by Objectives programs, later widely used in industry (see Odiorne, 1978, for a summary). Nowadays, Goal setting is an important componentof social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) in terms of its effect on task performance, while in the industry, lots of online tutorial, management tool and theory are produced based on goal setting components and aim at improving employee's working performance.

==Goal commitment==

Goal commitment, according to Locke et al, (1981), refers to the determination to try for a goal. Commitment implies the extension of effort,toward the accomplishment of an original goal and emphasizes an unwillingness to abandon or to lower the original goal(Campion & Lord, 1982). Goal commitment is basically about how much people would like to stick onto the goal: more important the goal is, more commitment to the goal. Also self-efficacy, pre-investment (how much effort or resource have already been put into achieving the goal)and social environment may also influence the developing of goal commitment. In addition, the emphasis is on commitment to difficult or challenging goals instead of comparably easy or simple goals.

==Feedback==

Feedback was also called knowledge of result in Locke's study (Locke et al.), and attempts were made to separate the effects of feedback (i.e., knowledge of results [KR]) from the effects of goal setting to determine whether KR directly influenced performance or whether its effects were mediated by goal-setting activity (Locke, 1967; Locke & Bryan, 1968, 1969a, 1969b; Locke, Cartledge, & Koeppel, 1968). In the most carefully controlled of these previous studies, all subjects with specific goals also received knowledge of their performance in relation to their goals; individuals in the KR conditions received knowledge of their actual scores presented in such a way as to preclude their use in setting goals. Such knowledge of scores did not lead to better performance than no knowledge of scores. The evidence from these and related studies indicated that knowledge of scores was not sufficient to improve task performance. However, since groups with goals and no KR were not included, these studies did not test the possibility that KR may be a necessary condition for goals to affect performance. These studies were conduct in late 1960s, and in later Power's study(1973), the linkage between goal setting and feedback within control systems was suggested. According to Powers, both goals and task feedback are compared by the mechanism labeled “comparator”. If a sufficiently large discrepancy of error exists, some form of remedial action is triggered. The dependence of the comparator on both goals and feedback is quite consistent with recent goal-setting research demonstrating that neither goals nor feedback, by themselves, significantly affect performance, but the feedback will definitely affect goal-setting or mediate the goal setting for reducing the discrepancy and the error-eliminating response will be initiated. Taking "to do a programming homework" as an example, the student may set up a goal as "spend 1 hour to complete the homework alone", but after half an hour, he notices that there are always errors reported and debugging takes much more time than his prior prediction, so he might want to change the goal into either spending one more hour in this homework or asking for help from peers or TA. Here, error reports from the compiler is the feedback or called knowledge of results that is interpreted to the student, which actually mediate his goal-setting.

Goal setting and feedback are widely believed to affect performance positively through enhancing the information and motivation necessary for work performance (Earley, Northcraft, Lee, & Lituchy, 1990).The performance benefit that goals produce is argued to stem from influencing the effort, persistence, and strategic direction of individual performance ( Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981).

Individual difference in laboratory study had also been looked into in Locke's study in early 1980s, and several variables have been examined: demographic variable (education, sex, age, race, job tenure) and personality variable (need for achievement, need for independence, self-esteem, internal vs. external control), but little significant results are found due to the inconsistent individual differences in the laboratory study (Locke et al. 1981).

==Goal setting’s effect on student’s performance with classroom setting==

'''Student Expectations About Affective Correlates of Academic'''
Performance benefit of goal setting appear to be well documented in numerous studies: Performance often improves when difficult and specific goals have been set, which does not mean that goal setting techniques will automatically enhance actual school performance, of course, because that will also depend on other factors. One such factor is student perceptions of the consequences of goal setting, especially perception of affective consequences. To the extent that the affective consequences of goal setting are perceived as negative, it should be more difficult to persuade students to commit themselves to difficult and specific goals, no matter what the actual consequences are and even if other expected consequences are favorable. As a conclusion, students' expectations of affective consequences should support rather than disrupt beneficial effects of goal setting on performance and examining the extent to which students have negative affective expectations about goal setting is desired.

==Summary of main research findings in goal setting ==
*A review of both laboratory and field studies on the effects of setting goals when performing a task found that in 90% of the studies: specific and challenging goals lead to higher performance than easy goals, "do your best" goals, or no goals. [task difficulty, goal specificity]
*A harder task led to better weight-lifting performance than an easier task when subjects were deceived as to the actual weights (Ness & Patton,1979) [task difficulty]
*Goals affect performance by directing attention, mobilizing effort, increasing persistence, and motivating strategy development.
*Goal setting is most likely to improve task performance when:
**The goals are specific and sufficiently challenging;
**The subjects have sufficient ability (and ability differences are controlled);
**Feedback is provided to show progress in relation to the goal, rewards such as money are given for goal attainment;
**The experimenter or manager is supportive, and assigned goals are accepted by the individual.
*No reliable individual differences have emerged in goal-setting studies, probably because the goals were typically assigned rather than self-set.( Need for achievement and self-esteem may be the most promising individual difference variables)
*Error could be reduced by changing initial goals
*Multiple goals: several tasks may be effectively coordinated through the use of multiple, goal dependent feedback loops
*The choice of initial goals: in many situation, the choice of initial goals is an important determinant of performance, especially when task feedback is slow or when tasks are not repetitive.
*Goals may be set close to levels of past performance on familiar tasks.
*Initial goals may be derived from higher level objectives which are hierarchically organized
*Initial goals may be externally influenced by social processed such as social comparison of modeling.

==References==

#Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969-1980. Edwin A. Locke, Lise M. Saari, Karyll N. ShawGary P. Latham
#A Control Systems Conceptualization of the Goal-Setting and Changing Process. (1982). Michael A. Campion, Robert G. Lord.
#Goal Commitment and the Goal-Setting Process: Problems, Prospects, and Proposals for Future Research. (1987).John R. Hollenbeck and Howard J. Klein.
#Goal Setting, Achievement Orientation, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meditational Analysis. (1994). Andrew J. Elliot, Judith M. Harackiewicz.
#Achievement Goals in the Classroom: Students' Learning Strategies and Motivation Processes. (1988).Carole Ames, Jennifer Archer.
#Student Expectations about Affective Correlates of Academic Goal Setting. (1991). Frank W. Wicker, Gall Brown, Anastasia S. Hagen, Wayne Boring, James A. Wiehe.

Clare's talk

2009-04-08T21:52:51Z

Clare.xie: Clare's talk moved to Re-do work

#REDIRECT [[Re-do work]]

Goal setting and its constructs

2009-04-08T21:52:51Z

Clare.xie: Clare's talk moved to Re-do work

"Goal" has been defined simply as "something that the person wants to achieve" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 2). Goal setting theory assumes that human action is directed by conscious goals and intentions" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 4). "Goal setting" refers to a specific outcome that an individual is striving to achieve(Dweck, 1992).

==Goal setting==

The concept of goal setting falls within the broad domain of cognitive psychology and is consistent with cognitive behavior modification (Meichenbaum,1977). The present interest of researchers in goal setting has two sources, one academic and the other organizational. The academic source extends back in time from Ryan (1970) and G. Miller, Galanter, and Pribrani (1960), through Lewin, to the Wurzburg School and the associated concepts of intention, task, set, and level of aspiration (see Ryan, 1970, for a summary). The organizational source is traced from Management by Objectives programs, now widely used in industry (see Odiorne, 1978, for a summary), back to the Scientific Management movement founded by Frederick W, Taylor (1911/1967). These two strains of thought converge in the more recent work of Locke (1968), Latham (Latham & Yukl, 1975b), and others who have studied the effects of goal setting on task performance.Goal setting is also an important componentof social learning theory (Bandura, 1977).

Two major attributes of goal setting in the earlier research are Content and Intensity(Rand, 1967).

==Content of goal setting==

The content of a goal is the object or result being sought.

The main dimensions of goal content that have been studied most are specificity or clarity (the degree of quantitative precision with which the aim is specified)and difficulty (the degree of proficiency or level of performance sought). The terms task difficulty and goal difficulty are often used interchangeably.

'''Task difficulty:''' The evidence of a positive, linear relation between goal difficulty and task performance (assuming sufficient ability) was firstly found by Locke (1968), and more later studies have supported these findings. Four results in three experimental field studies demonstrated that harder goals led to better performance than easy goals.

'''Goal specificity:''' Specific hard goals versus "do best" goals or no goals. Previous research found that specific, challenging (difficult) goals led to higher output than vague goals such as "do your best" (Locke, 1968). Subsequent research has strongly supported these results, although in a number of studies, no distinction was made between groups told to do their best and those assigned no specific goals.

'''Goal Complexity''' refers to the number and interrelation of the results aimed for.

'''Goal Conflict''' refers to the degree to which attaining one goal negates or subverts attaining another.

==Intensity of Goal setting==

The Intensity of a goal pertains to the process of setting the goal or of determining how to reach it. It would be measured by such factors as the scope of the cognitive process, the degree of effort required, the importance of the goal, and the context in which it is set. Goal intensity may be related to goal content. For example, a more intense psychological process is needed to set complex goals and to figure out how to attain them than the process needed to set and attain simple goals.

==Goal commitment==

Goal commitment, according to Locke et al, (1981), refers to the determination to try for a goal. Commitment implies the extension of effort, over time, toward the accomplishment of an original goal and emphasizes an unwillingness to abandon or to lower the original goal (Campion & Lord, 1982). In addition, the emphasis is on commitment to difficult goals. There is little in the literature to advocate the use of easy goals. Commitment to difficult goals should also be distinguished from acceptance of difficult goals, which merely refers to the initial use of a goal assigned by another person as a referent. Goal acceptance does not necessarily imply that the individual is bound to the standard. The present review deals conceptually with goal commitment because commitment is more critical for predicting performance. For example, one can initially accept a difficult goal and yet not demonstrate subsequent commitment to that goal over time.

==Feedback==

Feedback is also called knowledge of result (Locke et al.). In Locke’s study, attempts were made to separate the effects of feedback (i.e., knowledge of results [KR]) from the effects of goal setting to determine whether KR directly influenced performance or whether its effects were mediated by goal-setting activity (Locke, 1967; Locke & Bryan, 1968, 1969a, 1969b; Locke, Cartledge, & Koeppel, 1968). In the most carefully controlled of these studies, all subjects with specific goals also received knowledge of their performance in relation to their goals; individuals in the KR conditions received knowledge of their actual scores presented in such a way as to preclude their use in setting goals. Such knowledge of scores did not lead to better performance than no knowledge of scores. The evidence from these and related studies indicated that knowledge of scores was not sufficient to improve task performance. However, since groups with goals and no KR were not included, these studies did not test the possibility that KR may be a necessary condition for goals to affect performance. [[Image:Power's control model.jpg]]

In later Power's study(1973, the linkage between goal setting and feedback within control systems was suggested. According to Powers, the referent sate to which environmental information is compared cal be thought of as a goal. Both goals and environmental (task) feedback are compared by the mechanism labeled “comparator”. If a sufficiently large discrepancy of error exists, some form of remedial action is triggered. The dependence of the comparator on both goals and feedback is quite consistent with recent goal-setting research demonstrating that neither goals nor feedback, by themselves, significantly affect performance. If either a meaningful goal or feedback is missing, no error can be detected and no error-reducing response will be initiated.

==Three measurements of performance==

'''Effort:''' Since different goals may require different amounts of effort, effort is mobilized simultaneously with direction in proportion to the perceived requirements of the goal or task. More effort would be expended on hard tasks (which are accepted) than on easy tasks. Higher workloads produce higher subjective effort, faster heart rates, and higher output per unit time than lower workloads.

'''Persistence''' is directed effort extended over time.

'''Strategy development:''' It involves developing strategies or action plans for attaining one's goals. Although strategy development is motivated by goals, the mechanism itself is cognitive in essence; it involves skill development or creative problem solving.

Goal setting and feedback are widely believed to affect performance positively through enhancing the information and motivation necessary for work performance (Earley, Northcraft, Lee, & Lituchy, 1990). Goal setting theory has proved to be among the most robust and useful theories in organizational science. Strong support has been found for two of Locke ( 1968 ) main postulates: Difficult goals lead to higher levels of performance than easy goals, and specific, difficult goals lead to higher performance than do vague, difficult goals ( Mento, Steel, & Karren, 1987; Tubbs, 1986). The performance benefit that goals produce is argued to stem from influencing the effort, persistence, and strategic direction of individual performance ( Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981).
Individual difference in laboratory study To date, individual differences have received little attention in the goal-setting literature, although several variables have been examined: demographic variable (education, sex, age, race, job tenure) and personality variable (need for achievement, need for independence, self-esteem, internal vs. external control), but little significant results are found due to the inconsistent individual differences in the laboratory study (Locke et al. 1981).

==Goal setting’s effect on student’s performance with classroom setting==

'''Student Expectations About Affective Correlates of Academic'''
Performance benefit of goal setting appear to be well documented in numerous studies: Performance often improves when difficult and specific goals have been set, which does not mean that goal setting techniques will automatically enhance actual school performance, of course, because that will also depend on other factors. One such factor is student perceptions of the consequences of goal setting, especially perception of affective consequences. To the extent that the affective consequences of goal setting are perceived as negative, it should be more difficult to persuade students to commit themselves to difficult and specific goals, no matter what the actual consequences are and even if other expected consequences are favorable. As a conclusion, students' expectations of affective consequences should support rather than disrupt beneficial effects of goal setting on performance and examining the extent to which students have negative affective expectations about goal setting is desired.

==Summary of main research findings ==
*A review of both laboratory and field studies on the effects of setting goals when performing a task found that in 90% of the studies: specific and challenging goals lead to higher performance than easy goals, "do your best" goals, or no goals. [task difficulty, goal specificity]
*A harder task led to better weight-lifting performance than an easier task when subjects were deceived as to the actual weights (Ness & Patton,1979) [task difficulty]
*Goals affect performance by directing attention, mobilizing effort, increasing persistence, and motivating strategy development.
*Goal setting is most likely to improve task performance when:
**The goals are specific and sufficiently challenging;
**The subjects have sufficient ability (and ability differences are controlled);
**Feedback is provided to show progress in relation to the goal, rewards such as money are given for goal attainment;
**The experimenter or manager is supportive, and assigned goals are accepted by the individual.
*No reliable individual differences have emerged in goal-setting studies, probably because the goals were typically assigned rather than self-set.( Need for achievement and self-esteem may be the most promising individual difference variables)
*Error could be reduced by changing initial goals
*Multiple goals: several tasks may be effectively coordinated through the use of multiple, goal dependent feedback loops
*The choice of initial goals: in many situation, the choice of initial goals is an important determinant of performance, especially when task feedback is slow or when tasks are not repetitive.
*Goals may be set close to levels of past performance on familiar tasks.
*Initial goals may be derived from higher level objectives which are hierarchically organized
*Initial goals may be externally influenced by social processed such as social comparison of modeling.

==References==

#Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969-1980. Edwin A. Locke, Lise M. Saari, Karyll N. ShawGary P. Latham
#A Control Systems Conceptualization of the Goal-Setting and Changing Process. (1982). Michael A. Campion, Robert G. Lord.
#Goal Commitment and the Goal-Setting Process: Problems, Prospects, and Proposals for Future Research. (1987).John R. Hollenbeck and Howard J. Klein.
#Goal Setting, Achievement Orientation, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meditational Analysis. (1994). Andrew J. Elliot, Judith M. Harackiewicz.
#Achievement Goals in the Classroom: Students' Learning Strategies and Motivation Processes. (1988).Carole Ames, Jennifer Archer.
#Student Expectations about Affective Correlates of Academic Goal Setting. (1991). Frank W. Wicker, Gall Brown, Anastasia S. Hagen, Wayne Boring, James A. Wiehe.

Goal Setting and its Motivational Constructs

2009-04-08T21:51:50Z

Clare.xie: Goal Setting and its Motivational Constructs moved to Clare's talk

#REDIRECT [[Clare's talk]]

Goal setting and its constructs

2009-04-08T21:51:50Z

Clare.xie: Goal Setting and its Motivational Constructs moved to Clare's talk

"Goal" has been defined simply as "something that the person wants to achieve" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 2). Goal setting theory assumes that human action is directed by conscious goals and intentions" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 4). "Goal setting" refers to a specific outcome that an individual is striving to achieve(Dweck, 1992).

==Goal setting==

The concept of goal setting falls within the broad domain of cognitive psychology and is consistent with cognitive behavior modification (Meichenbaum,1977). The present interest of researchers in goal setting has two sources, one academic and the other organizational. The academic source extends back in time from Ryan (1970) and G. Miller, Galanter, and Pribrani (1960), through Lewin, to the Wurzburg School and the associated concepts of intention, task, set, and level of aspiration (see Ryan, 1970, for a summary). The organizational source is traced from Management by Objectives programs, now widely used in industry (see Odiorne, 1978, for a summary), back to the Scientific Management movement founded by Frederick W, Taylor (1911/1967). These two strains of thought converge in the more recent work of Locke (1968), Latham (Latham & Yukl, 1975b), and others who have studied the effects of goal setting on task performance.Goal setting is also an important componentof social learning theory (Bandura, 1977).

Two major attributes of goal setting in the earlier research are Content and Intensity(Rand, 1967).

==Content of goal setting==

The content of a goal is the object or result being sought.

The main dimensions of goal content that have been studied most are specificity or clarity (the degree of quantitative precision with which the aim is specified)and difficulty (the degree of proficiency or level of performance sought). The terms task difficulty and goal difficulty are often used interchangeably.

'''Task difficulty:''' The evidence of a positive, linear relation between goal difficulty and task performance (assuming sufficient ability) was firstly found by Locke (1968), and more later studies have supported these findings. Four results in three experimental field studies demonstrated that harder goals led to better performance than easy goals.

'''Goal specificity:''' Specific hard goals versus "do best" goals or no goals. Previous research found that specific, challenging (difficult) goals led to higher output than vague goals such as "do your best" (Locke, 1968). Subsequent research has strongly supported these results, although in a number of studies, no distinction was made between groups told to do their best and those assigned no specific goals.

'''Goal Complexity''' refers to the number and interrelation of the results aimed for.

'''Goal Conflict''' refers to the degree to which attaining one goal negates or subverts attaining another.

==Intensity of Goal setting==

The Intensity of a goal pertains to the process of setting the goal or of determining how to reach it. It would be measured by such factors as the scope of the cognitive process, the degree of effort required, the importance of the goal, and the context in which it is set. Goal intensity may be related to goal content. For example, a more intense psychological process is needed to set complex goals and to figure out how to attain them than the process needed to set and attain simple goals.

==Goal commitment==

Goal commitment, according to Locke et al, (1981), refers to the determination to try for a goal. Commitment implies the extension of effort, over time, toward the accomplishment of an original goal and emphasizes an unwillingness to abandon or to lower the original goal (Campion & Lord, 1982). In addition, the emphasis is on commitment to difficult goals. There is little in the literature to advocate the use of easy goals. Commitment to difficult goals should also be distinguished from acceptance of difficult goals, which merely refers to the initial use of a goal assigned by another person as a referent. Goal acceptance does not necessarily imply that the individual is bound to the standard. The present review deals conceptually with goal commitment because commitment is more critical for predicting performance. For example, one can initially accept a difficult goal and yet not demonstrate subsequent commitment to that goal over time.

==Feedback==

Feedback is also called knowledge of result (Locke et al.). In Locke’s study, attempts were made to separate the effects of feedback (i.e., knowledge of results [KR]) from the effects of goal setting to determine whether KR directly influenced performance or whether its effects were mediated by goal-setting activity (Locke, 1967; Locke & Bryan, 1968, 1969a, 1969b; Locke, Cartledge, & Koeppel, 1968). In the most carefully controlled of these studies, all subjects with specific goals also received knowledge of their performance in relation to their goals; individuals in the KR conditions received knowledge of their actual scores presented in such a way as to preclude their use in setting goals. Such knowledge of scores did not lead to better performance than no knowledge of scores. The evidence from these and related studies indicated that knowledge of scores was not sufficient to improve task performance. However, since groups with goals and no KR were not included, these studies did not test the possibility that KR may be a necessary condition for goals to affect performance. [[Image:Power's control model.jpg]]

In later Power's study(1973, the linkage between goal setting and feedback within control systems was suggested. According to Powers, the referent sate to which environmental information is compared cal be thought of as a goal. Both goals and environmental (task) feedback are compared by the mechanism labeled “comparator”. If a sufficiently large discrepancy of error exists, some form of remedial action is triggered. The dependence of the comparator on both goals and feedback is quite consistent with recent goal-setting research demonstrating that neither goals nor feedback, by themselves, significantly affect performance. If either a meaningful goal or feedback is missing, no error can be detected and no error-reducing response will be initiated.

==Three measurements of performance==

'''Effort:''' Since different goals may require different amounts of effort, effort is mobilized simultaneously with direction in proportion to the perceived requirements of the goal or task. More effort would be expended on hard tasks (which are accepted) than on easy tasks. Higher workloads produce higher subjective effort, faster heart rates, and higher output per unit time than lower workloads.

'''Persistence''' is directed effort extended over time.

'''Strategy development:''' It involves developing strategies or action plans for attaining one's goals. Although strategy development is motivated by goals, the mechanism itself is cognitive in essence; it involves skill development or creative problem solving.

Goal setting and feedback are widely believed to affect performance positively through enhancing the information and motivation necessary for work performance (Earley, Northcraft, Lee, & Lituchy, 1990). Goal setting theory has proved to be among the most robust and useful theories in organizational science. Strong support has been found for two of Locke ( 1968 ) main postulates: Difficult goals lead to higher levels of performance than easy goals, and specific, difficult goals lead to higher performance than do vague, difficult goals ( Mento, Steel, & Karren, 1987; Tubbs, 1986). The performance benefit that goals produce is argued to stem from influencing the effort, persistence, and strategic direction of individual performance ( Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981).
Individual difference in laboratory study To date, individual differences have received little attention in the goal-setting literature, although several variables have been examined: demographic variable (education, sex, age, race, job tenure) and personality variable (need for achievement, need for independence, self-esteem, internal vs. external control), but little significant results are found due to the inconsistent individual differences in the laboratory study (Locke et al. 1981).

==Goal setting’s effect on student’s performance with classroom setting==

'''Student Expectations About Affective Correlates of Academic'''
Performance benefit of goal setting appear to be well documented in numerous studies: Performance often improves when difficult and specific goals have been set, which does not mean that goal setting techniques will automatically enhance actual school performance, of course, because that will also depend on other factors. One such factor is student perceptions of the consequences of goal setting, especially perception of affective consequences. To the extent that the affective consequences of goal setting are perceived as negative, it should be more difficult to persuade students to commit themselves to difficult and specific goals, no matter what the actual consequences are and even if other expected consequences are favorable. As a conclusion, students' expectations of affective consequences should support rather than disrupt beneficial effects of goal setting on performance and examining the extent to which students have negative affective expectations about goal setting is desired.

==Summary of main research findings ==
*A review of both laboratory and field studies on the effects of setting goals when performing a task found that in 90% of the studies: specific and challenging goals lead to higher performance than easy goals, "do your best" goals, or no goals. [task difficulty, goal specificity]
*A harder task led to better weight-lifting performance than an easier task when subjects were deceived as to the actual weights (Ness & Patton,1979) [task difficulty]
*Goals affect performance by directing attention, mobilizing effort, increasing persistence, and motivating strategy development.
*Goal setting is most likely to improve task performance when:
**The goals are specific and sufficiently challenging;
**The subjects have sufficient ability (and ability differences are controlled);
**Feedback is provided to show progress in relation to the goal, rewards such as money are given for goal attainment;
**The experimenter or manager is supportive, and assigned goals are accepted by the individual.
*No reliable individual differences have emerged in goal-setting studies, probably because the goals were typically assigned rather than self-set.( Need for achievement and self-esteem may be the most promising individual difference variables)
*Error could be reduced by changing initial goals
*Multiple goals: several tasks may be effectively coordinated through the use of multiple, goal dependent feedback loops
*The choice of initial goals: in many situation, the choice of initial goals is an important determinant of performance, especially when task feedback is slow or when tasks are not repetitive.
*Goals may be set close to levels of past performance on familiar tasks.
*Initial goals may be derived from higher level objectives which are hierarchically organized
*Initial goals may be externally influenced by social processed such as social comparison of modeling.

==References==

#Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969-1980. Edwin A. Locke, Lise M. Saari, Karyll N. ShawGary P. Latham
#A Control Systems Conceptualization of the Goal-Setting and Changing Process. (1982). Michael A. Campion, Robert G. Lord.
#Goal Commitment and the Goal-Setting Process: Problems, Prospects, and Proposals for Future Research. (1987).John R. Hollenbeck and Howard J. Klein.
#Goal Setting, Achievement Orientation, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meditational Analysis. (1994). Andrew J. Elliot, Judith M. Harackiewicz.
#Achievement Goals in the Classroom: Students' Learning Strategies and Motivation Processes. (1988).Carole Ames, Jennifer Archer.
#Student Expectations about Affective Correlates of Academic Goal Setting. (1991). Frank W. Wicker, Gall Brown, Anastasia S. Hagen, Wayne Boring, James A. Wiehe.

User:Clare.xie

2009-04-08T21:50:48Z

Clare.xie: Removing all content from page

Goal setting and its constructs

2009-03-27T05:28:54Z

Clare.xie: /* Feedback */

"Goal" has been defined simply as "something that the person wants to achieve" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 2). Goal setting theory assumes that human action is directed by conscious goals and intentions" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 4). "Goal setting" refers to a specific outcome that an individual is striving to achieve(Dweck, 1992).

==Goal setting==

The concept of goal setting falls within the broad domain of cognitive psychology and is consistent with cognitive behavior modification (Meichenbaum,1977). The present interest of researchers in goal setting has two sources, one academic and the other organizational. The academic source extends back in time from Ryan (1970) and G. Miller, Galanter, and Pribrani (1960), through Lewin, to the Wurzburg School and the associated concepts of intention, task, set, and level of aspiration (see Ryan, 1970, for a summary). The organizational source is traced from Management by Objectives programs, now widely used in industry (see Odiorne, 1978, for a summary), back to the Scientific Management movement founded by Frederick W, Taylor (1911/1967). These two strains of thought converge in the more recent work of Locke (1968), Latham (Latham & Yukl, 1975b), and others who have studied the effects of goal setting on task performance.Goal setting is also an important componentof social learning theory (Bandura, 1977).

Two major attributes of goal setting in the earlier research are Content and Intensity(Rand, 1967).

==Content of goal setting==

The content of a goal is the object or result being sought.

The main dimensions of goal content that have been studied most are specificity or clarity (the degree of quantitative precision with which the aim is specified)and difficulty (the degree of proficiency or level of performance sought). The terms task difficulty and goal difficulty are often used interchangeably.

'''Task difficulty:''' The evidence of a positive, linear relation between goal difficulty and task performance (assuming sufficient ability) was firstly found by Locke (1968), and more later studies have supported these findings. Four results in three experimental field studies demonstrated that harder goals led to better performance than easy goals.

'''Goal specificity:''' Specific hard goals versus "do best" goals or no goals. Previous research found that specific, challenging (difficult) goals led to higher output than vague goals such as "do your best" (Locke, 1968). Subsequent research has strongly supported these results, although in a number of studies, no distinction was made between groups told to do their best and those assigned no specific goals.

'''Goal Complexity''' refers to the number and interrelation of the results aimed for.

'''Goal Conflict''' refers to the degree to which attaining one goal negates or subverts attaining another.

==Intensity of Goal setting==

The Intensity of a goal pertains to the process of setting the goal or of determining how to reach it. It would be measured by such factors as the scope of the cognitive process, the degree of effort required, the importance of the goal, and the context in which it is set. Goal intensity may be related to goal content. For example, a more intense psychological process is needed to set complex goals and to figure out how to attain them than the process needed to set and attain simple goals.

==Goal commitment==

Goal commitment, according to Locke et al, (1981), refers to the determination to try for a goal. Commitment implies the extension of effort, over time, toward the accomplishment of an original goal and emphasizes an unwillingness to abandon or to lower the original goal (Campion & Lord, 1982). In addition, the emphasis is on commitment to difficult goals. There is little in the literature to advocate the use of easy goals. Commitment to difficult goals should also be distinguished from acceptance of difficult goals, which merely refers to the initial use of a goal assigned by another person as a referent. Goal acceptance does not necessarily imply that the individual is bound to the standard. The present review deals conceptually with goal commitment because commitment is more critical for predicting performance. For example, one can initially accept a difficult goal and yet not demonstrate subsequent commitment to that goal over time.

==Feedback==

Feedback is also called knowledge of result (Locke et al.). In Locke’s study, attempts were made to separate the effects of feedback (i.e., knowledge of results [KR]) from the effects of goal setting to determine whether KR directly influenced performance or whether its effects were mediated by goal-setting activity (Locke, 1967; Locke & Bryan, 1968, 1969a, 1969b; Locke, Cartledge, & Koeppel, 1968). In the most carefully controlled of these studies, all subjects with specific goals also received knowledge of their performance in relation to their goals; individuals in the KR conditions received knowledge of their actual scores presented in such a way as to preclude their use in setting goals. Such knowledge of scores did not lead to better performance than no knowledge of scores. The evidence from these and related studies indicated that knowledge of scores was not sufficient to improve task performance. However, since groups with goals and no KR were not included, these studies did not test the possibility that KR may be a necessary condition for goals to affect performance. [[Image:Power's control model.jpg]]

In later Power's study(1973, the linkage between goal setting and feedback within control systems was suggested. According to Powers, the referent sate to which environmental information is compared cal be thought of as a goal. Both goals and environmental (task) feedback are compared by the mechanism labeled “comparator”. If a sufficiently large discrepancy of error exists, some form of remedial action is triggered. The dependence of the comparator on both goals and feedback is quite consistent with recent goal-setting research demonstrating that neither goals nor feedback, by themselves, significantly affect performance. If either a meaningful goal or feedback is missing, no error can be detected and no error-reducing response will be initiated.

==Three measurements of performance==

'''Effort:''' Since different goals may require different amounts of effort, effort is mobilized simultaneously with direction in proportion to the perceived requirements of the goal or task. More effort would be expended on hard tasks (which are accepted) than on easy tasks. Higher workloads produce higher subjective effort, faster heart rates, and higher output per unit time than lower workloads.

'''Persistence''' is directed effort extended over time.

'''Strategy development:''' It involves developing strategies or action plans for attaining one's goals. Although strategy development is motivated by goals, the mechanism itself is cognitive in essence; it involves skill development or creative problem solving.

Goal setting and feedback are widely believed to affect performance positively through enhancing the information and motivation necessary for work performance (Earley, Northcraft, Lee, & Lituchy, 1990). Goal setting theory has proved to be among the most robust and useful theories in organizational science. Strong support has been found for two of Locke ( 1968 ) main postulates: Difficult goals lead to higher levels of performance than easy goals, and specific, difficult goals lead to higher performance than do vague, difficult goals ( Mento, Steel, & Karren, 1987; Tubbs, 1986). The performance benefit that goals produce is argued to stem from influencing the effort, persistence, and strategic direction of individual performance ( Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981).
Individual difference in laboratory study To date, individual differences have received little attention in the goal-setting literature, although several variables have been examined: demographic variable (education, sex, age, race, job tenure) and personality variable (need for achievement, need for independence, self-esteem, internal vs. external control), but little significant results are found due to the inconsistent individual differences in the laboratory study (Locke et al. 1981).

==Goal setting’s effect on student’s performance with classroom setting==

'''Student Expectations About Affective Correlates of Academic'''
Performance benefit of goal setting appear to be well documented in numerous studies: Performance often improves when difficult and specific goals have been set, which does not mean that goal setting techniques will automatically enhance actual school performance, of course, because that will also depend on other factors. One such factor is student perceptions of the consequences of goal setting, especially perception of affective consequences. To the extent that the affective consequences of goal setting are perceived as negative, it should be more difficult to persuade students to commit themselves to difficult and specific goals, no matter what the actual consequences are and even if other expected consequences are favorable. As a conclusion, students' expectations of affective consequences should support rather than disrupt beneficial effects of goal setting on performance and examining the extent to which students have negative affective expectations about goal setting is desired.

==Summary of main research findings ==
*A review of both laboratory and field studies on the effects of setting goals when performing a task found that in 90% of the studies: specific and challenging goals lead to higher performance than easy goals, "do your best" goals, or no goals. [task difficulty, goal specificity]
*A harder task led to better weight-lifting performance than an easier task when subjects were deceived as to the actual weights (Ness & Patton,1979) [task difficulty]
*Goals affect performance by directing attention, mobilizing effort, increasing persistence, and motivating strategy development.
*Goal setting is most likely to improve task performance when:
**The goals are specific and sufficiently challenging;
**The subjects have sufficient ability (and ability differences are controlled);
**Feedback is provided to show progress in relation to the goal, rewards such as money are given for goal attainment;
**The experimenter or manager is supportive, and assigned goals are accepted by the individual.
*No reliable individual differences have emerged in goal-setting studies, probably because the goals were typically assigned rather than self-set.( Need for achievement and self-esteem may be the most promising individual difference variables)
*Error could be reduced by changing initial goals
*Multiple goals: several tasks may be effectively coordinated through the use of multiple, goal dependent feedback loops
*The choice of initial goals: in many situation, the choice of initial goals is an important determinant of performance, especially when task feedback is slow or when tasks are not repetitive.
*Goals may be set close to levels of past performance on familiar tasks.
*Initial goals may be derived from higher level objectives which are hierarchically organized
*Initial goals may be externally influenced by social processed such as social comparison of modeling.

==References==

#Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969-1980. Edwin A. Locke, Lise M. Saari, Karyll N. ShawGary P. Latham
#A Control Systems Conceptualization of the Goal-Setting and Changing Process. (1982). Michael A. Campion, Robert G. Lord.
#Goal Commitment and the Goal-Setting Process: Problems, Prospects, and Proposals for Future Research. (1987).John R. Hollenbeck and Howard J. Klein.
#Goal Setting, Achievement Orientation, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meditational Analysis. (1994). Andrew J. Elliot, Judith M. Harackiewicz.
#Achievement Goals in the Classroom: Students' Learning Strategies and Motivation Processes. (1988).Carole Ames, Jennifer Archer.
#Student Expectations about Affective Correlates of Academic Goal Setting. (1991). Frank W. Wicker, Gall Brown, Anastasia S. Hagen, Wayne Boring, James A. Wiehe.

File:Power's control model.jpg

2009-03-27T05:25:56Z

Clare.xie: uploaded a new version of "Image:Power's control model.jpg"

File:Power's control model.jpg

2009-03-27T05:23:44Z

Clare.xie:

Goal setting and its constructs

2009-03-27T05:23:20Z

Clare.xie: /* Feedback */

"Goal" has been defined simply as "something that the person wants to achieve" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 2). Goal setting theory assumes that human action is directed by conscious goals and intentions" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 4). "Goal setting" refers to a specific outcome that an individual is striving to achieve(Dweck, 1992).

==Goal setting==

The concept of goal setting falls within the broad domain of cognitive psychology and is consistent with cognitive behavior modification (Meichenbaum,1977). The present interest of researchers in goal setting has two sources, one academic and the other organizational. The academic source extends back in time from Ryan (1970) and G. Miller, Galanter, and Pribrani (1960), through Lewin, to the Wurzburg School and the associated concepts of intention, task, set, and level of aspiration (see Ryan, 1970, for a summary). The organizational source is traced from Management by Objectives programs, now widely used in industry (see Odiorne, 1978, for a summary), back to the Scientific Management movement founded by Frederick W, Taylor (1911/1967). These two strains of thought converge in the more recent work of Locke (1968), Latham (Latham & Yukl, 1975b), and others who have studied the effects of goal setting on task performance.Goal setting is also an important componentof social learning theory (Bandura, 1977).

Two major attributes of goal setting in the earlier research are Content and Intensity(Rand, 1967).

==Content of goal setting==

The content of a goal is the object or result being sought.

The main dimensions of goal content that have been studied most are specificity or clarity (the degree of quantitative precision with which the aim is specified)and difficulty (the degree of proficiency or level of performance sought). The terms task difficulty and goal difficulty are often used interchangeably.

'''Task difficulty:''' The evidence of a positive, linear relation between goal difficulty and task performance (assuming sufficient ability) was firstly found by Locke (1968), and more later studies have supported these findings. Four results in three experimental field studies demonstrated that harder goals led to better performance than easy goals.

'''Goal specificity:''' Specific hard goals versus "do best" goals or no goals. Previous research found that specific, challenging (difficult) goals led to higher output than vague goals such as "do your best" (Locke, 1968). Subsequent research has strongly supported these results, although in a number of studies, no distinction was made between groups told to do their best and those assigned no specific goals.

'''Goal Complexity''' refers to the number and interrelation of the results aimed for.

'''Goal Conflict''' refers to the degree to which attaining one goal negates or subverts attaining another.

==Intensity of Goal setting==

The Intensity of a goal pertains to the process of setting the goal or of determining how to reach it. It would be measured by such factors as the scope of the cognitive process, the degree of effort required, the importance of the goal, and the context in which it is set. Goal intensity may be related to goal content. For example, a more intense psychological process is needed to set complex goals and to figure out how to attain them than the process needed to set and attain simple goals.

==Goal commitment==

Goal commitment, according to Locke et al, (1981), refers to the determination to try for a goal. Commitment implies the extension of effort, over time, toward the accomplishment of an original goal and emphasizes an unwillingness to abandon or to lower the original goal (Campion & Lord, 1982). In addition, the emphasis is on commitment to difficult goals. There is little in the literature to advocate the use of easy goals. Commitment to difficult goals should also be distinguished from acceptance of difficult goals, which merely refers to the initial use of a goal assigned by another person as a referent. Goal acceptance does not necessarily imply that the individual is bound to the standard. The present review deals conceptually with goal commitment because commitment is more critical for predicting performance. For example, one can initially accept a difficult goal and yet not demonstrate subsequent commitment to that goal over time.

==Feedback==

Feedback is also called knowledge of result (Locke et al.). In Locke’s study, attempts were made to separate the effects of feedback (i.e., knowledge of results [KR]) from the effects of goal setting to determine whether KR directly influenced performance or whether its effects were mediated by goal-setting activity (Locke, 1967; Locke & Bryan, 1968, 1969a, 1969b; Locke, Cartledge, & Koeppel, 1968). In the most carefully controlled of these studies, all subjects with specific goals also received knowledge of their performance in relation to their goals; individuals in the KR conditions received knowledge of their actual scores presented in such a way as to preclude their use in setting goals. Such knowledge of scores did not lead to better performance than no knowledge of scores. The evidence from these and related studies indicated that knowledge of scores was not sufficient to improve task performance. However, since groups with goals and no KR were not included, these studies did not test the possibility that KR may be a necessary condition for goals to affect performance. In later Power's study(1973) [[Image:Power's control model.jpg]], the linkage between goal setting and feedback within control systems was suggested. According to Powers, the referent sate to which environmental information is compared cal be thought of as a goal. Both goals and environmental (task) feedback are compared by the mechanism labeled “comparator”. If a sufficiently large discrepancy of error exists, some form of remedial action is triggered. The dependence of the comparator on both goals and feedback is quite consistent with recent goal-setting research demonstrating that neither goals nor feedback, by themselves, significantly affect performance. If either a meaningful goal or feedback is missing, no error can be detected and no error-reducing response will be initiated.

==Three measurements of performance==

'''Effort:''' Since different goals may require different amounts of effort, effort is mobilized simultaneously with direction in proportion to the perceived requirements of the goal or task. More effort would be expended on hard tasks (which are accepted) than on easy tasks. Higher workloads produce higher subjective effort, faster heart rates, and higher output per unit time than lower workloads.

'''Persistence''' is directed effort extended over time.

'''Strategy development:''' It involves developing strategies or action plans for attaining one's goals. Although strategy development is motivated by goals, the mechanism itself is cognitive in essence; it involves skill development or creative problem solving.

Goal setting and feedback are widely believed to affect performance positively through enhancing the information and motivation necessary for work performance (Earley, Northcraft, Lee, & Lituchy, 1990). Goal setting theory has proved to be among the most robust and useful theories in organizational science. Strong support has been found for two of Locke ( 1968 ) main postulates: Difficult goals lead to higher levels of performance than easy goals, and specific, difficult goals lead to higher performance than do vague, difficult goals ( Mento, Steel, & Karren, 1987; Tubbs, 1986). The performance benefit that goals produce is argued to stem from influencing the effort, persistence, and strategic direction of individual performance ( Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981).
Individual difference in laboratory study To date, individual differences have received little attention in the goal-setting literature, although several variables have been examined: demographic variable (education, sex, age, race, job tenure) and personality variable (need for achievement, need for independence, self-esteem, internal vs. external control), but little significant results are found due to the inconsistent individual differences in the laboratory study (Locke et al. 1981).

==Goal setting’s effect on student’s performance with classroom setting==

'''Student Expectations About Affective Correlates of Academic'''
Performance benefit of goal setting appear to be well documented in numerous studies: Performance often improves when difficult and specific goals have been set, which does not mean that goal setting techniques will automatically enhance actual school performance, of course, because that will also depend on other factors. One such factor is student perceptions of the consequences of goal setting, especially perception of affective consequences. To the extent that the affective consequences of goal setting are perceived as negative, it should be more difficult to persuade students to commit themselves to difficult and specific goals, no matter what the actual consequences are and even if other expected consequences are favorable. As a conclusion, students' expectations of affective consequences should support rather than disrupt beneficial effects of goal setting on performance and examining the extent to which students have negative affective expectations about goal setting is desired.

==Summary of main research findings ==
*A review of both laboratory and field studies on the effects of setting goals when performing a task found that in 90% of the studies: specific and challenging goals lead to higher performance than easy goals, "do your best" goals, or no goals. [task difficulty, goal specificity]
*A harder task led to better weight-lifting performance than an easier task when subjects were deceived as to the actual weights (Ness & Patton,1979) [task difficulty]
*Goals affect performance by directing attention, mobilizing effort, increasing persistence, and motivating strategy development.
*Goal setting is most likely to improve task performance when:
**The goals are specific and sufficiently challenging;
**The subjects have sufficient ability (and ability differences are controlled);
**Feedback is provided to show progress in relation to the goal, rewards such as money are given for goal attainment;
**The experimenter or manager is supportive, and assigned goals are accepted by the individual.
*No reliable individual differences have emerged in goal-setting studies, probably because the goals were typically assigned rather than self-set.( Need for achievement and self-esteem may be the most promising individual difference variables)
*Error could be reduced by changing initial goals
*Multiple goals: several tasks may be effectively coordinated through the use of multiple, goal dependent feedback loops
*The choice of initial goals: in many situation, the choice of initial goals is an important determinant of performance, especially when task feedback is slow or when tasks are not repetitive.
*Goals may be set close to levels of past performance on familiar tasks.
*Initial goals may be derived from higher level objectives which are hierarchically organized
*Initial goals may be externally influenced by social processed such as social comparison of modeling.

==References==

#Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969-1980. Edwin A. Locke, Lise M. Saari, Karyll N. ShawGary P. Latham
#A Control Systems Conceptualization of the Goal-Setting and Changing Process. (1982). Michael A. Campion, Robert G. Lord.
#Goal Commitment and the Goal-Setting Process: Problems, Prospects, and Proposals for Future Research. (1987).John R. Hollenbeck and Howard J. Klein.
#Goal Setting, Achievement Orientation, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meditational Analysis. (1994). Andrew J. Elliot, Judith M. Harackiewicz.
#Achievement Goals in the Classroom: Students' Learning Strategies and Motivation Processes. (1988).Carole Ames, Jennifer Archer.
#Student Expectations about Affective Correlates of Academic Goal Setting. (1991). Frank W. Wicker, Gall Brown, Anastasia S. Hagen, Wayne Boring, James A. Wiehe.

Goal setting and its constructs

2009-03-27T05:23:00Z

Clare.xie: /* Feedback */

"Goal" has been defined simply as "something that the person wants to achieve" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 2). Goal setting theory assumes that human action is directed by conscious goals and intentions" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 4). "Goal setting" refers to a specific outcome that an individual is striving to achieve(Dweck, 1992).

==Goal setting==

The concept of goal setting falls within the broad domain of cognitive psychology and is consistent with cognitive behavior modification (Meichenbaum,1977). The present interest of researchers in goal setting has two sources, one academic and the other organizational. The academic source extends back in time from Ryan (1970) and G. Miller, Galanter, and Pribrani (1960), through Lewin, to the Wurzburg School and the associated concepts of intention, task, set, and level of aspiration (see Ryan, 1970, for a summary). The organizational source is traced from Management by Objectives programs, now widely used in industry (see Odiorne, 1978, for a summary), back to the Scientific Management movement founded by Frederick W, Taylor (1911/1967). These two strains of thought converge in the more recent work of Locke (1968), Latham (Latham & Yukl, 1975b), and others who have studied the effects of goal setting on task performance.Goal setting is also an important componentof social learning theory (Bandura, 1977).

Two major attributes of goal setting in the earlier research are Content and Intensity(Rand, 1967).

==Content of goal setting==

The content of a goal is the object or result being sought.

The main dimensions of goal content that have been studied most are specificity or clarity (the degree of quantitative precision with which the aim is specified)and difficulty (the degree of proficiency or level of performance sought). The terms task difficulty and goal difficulty are often used interchangeably.

'''Task difficulty:''' The evidence of a positive, linear relation between goal difficulty and task performance (assuming sufficient ability) was firstly found by Locke (1968), and more later studies have supported these findings. Four results in three experimental field studies demonstrated that harder goals led to better performance than easy goals.

'''Goal specificity:''' Specific hard goals versus "do best" goals or no goals. Previous research found that specific, challenging (difficult) goals led to higher output than vague goals such as "do your best" (Locke, 1968). Subsequent research has strongly supported these results, although in a number of studies, no distinction was made between groups told to do their best and those assigned no specific goals.

'''Goal Complexity''' refers to the number and interrelation of the results aimed for.

'''Goal Conflict''' refers to the degree to which attaining one goal negates or subverts attaining another.

==Intensity of Goal setting==

The Intensity of a goal pertains to the process of setting the goal or of determining how to reach it. It would be measured by such factors as the scope of the cognitive process, the degree of effort required, the importance of the goal, and the context in which it is set. Goal intensity may be related to goal content. For example, a more intense psychological process is needed to set complex goals and to figure out how to attain them than the process needed to set and attain simple goals.

==Goal commitment==

Goal commitment, according to Locke et al, (1981), refers to the determination to try for a goal. Commitment implies the extension of effort, over time, toward the accomplishment of an original goal and emphasizes an unwillingness to abandon or to lower the original goal (Campion & Lord, 1982). In addition, the emphasis is on commitment to difficult goals. There is little in the literature to advocate the use of easy goals. Commitment to difficult goals should also be distinguished from acceptance of difficult goals, which merely refers to the initial use of a goal assigned by another person as a referent. Goal acceptance does not necessarily imply that the individual is bound to the standard. The present review deals conceptually with goal commitment because commitment is more critical for predicting performance. For example, one can initially accept a difficult goal and yet not demonstrate subsequent commitment to that goal over time.

==Feedback==

Feedback is also called knowledge of result (Locke et al.). In Locke’s study, attempts were made to separate the effects of feedback (i.e., knowledge of results [KR]) from the effects of goal setting to determine whether KR directly influenced performance or whether its effects were mediated by goal-setting activity (Locke, 1967; Locke & Bryan, 1968, 1969a, 1969b; Locke, Cartledge, & Koeppel, 1968). In the most carefully controlled of these studies, all subjects with specific goals also received knowledge of their performance in relation to their goals; individuals in the KR conditions received knowledge of their actual scores presented in such a way as to preclude their use in setting goals. Such knowledge of scores did not lead to better performance than no knowledge of scores. The evidence from these and related studies indicated that knowledge of scores was not sufficient to improve task performance. However, since groups with goals and no KR were not included, these studies did not test the possibility that KR may be a necessary condition for goals to affect performance. In later Power's study(1973) [[Image:Power's control model.jpg)]], the linkage between goal setting and feedback within control systems was suggested. According to Powers, the referent sate to which environmental information is compared cal be thought of as a goal. Both goals and environmental (task) feedback are compared by the mechanism labeled “comparator”. If a sufficiently large discrepancy of error exists, some form of remedial action is triggered. The dependence of the comparator on both goals and feedback is quite consistent with recent goal-setting research demonstrating that neither goals nor feedback, by themselves, significantly affect performance. If either a meaningful goal or feedback is missing, no error can be detected and no error-reducing response will be initiated.

==Three measurements of performance==

'''Effort:''' Since different goals may require different amounts of effort, effort is mobilized simultaneously with direction in proportion to the perceived requirements of the goal or task. More effort would be expended on hard tasks (which are accepted) than on easy tasks. Higher workloads produce higher subjective effort, faster heart rates, and higher output per unit time than lower workloads.

'''Persistence''' is directed effort extended over time.

'''Strategy development:''' It involves developing strategies or action plans for attaining one's goals. Although strategy development is motivated by goals, the mechanism itself is cognitive in essence; it involves skill development or creative problem solving.

Goal setting and feedback are widely believed to affect performance positively through enhancing the information and motivation necessary for work performance (Earley, Northcraft, Lee, & Lituchy, 1990). Goal setting theory has proved to be among the most robust and useful theories in organizational science. Strong support has been found for two of Locke ( 1968 ) main postulates: Difficult goals lead to higher levels of performance than easy goals, and specific, difficult goals lead to higher performance than do vague, difficult goals ( Mento, Steel, & Karren, 1987; Tubbs, 1986). The performance benefit that goals produce is argued to stem from influencing the effort, persistence, and strategic direction of individual performance ( Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981).
Individual difference in laboratory study To date, individual differences have received little attention in the goal-setting literature, although several variables have been examined: demographic variable (education, sex, age, race, job tenure) and personality variable (need for achievement, need for independence, self-esteem, internal vs. external control), but little significant results are found due to the inconsistent individual differences in the laboratory study (Locke et al. 1981).

==Goal setting’s effect on student’s performance with classroom setting==

'''Student Expectations About Affective Correlates of Academic'''
Performance benefit of goal setting appear to be well documented in numerous studies: Performance often improves when difficult and specific goals have been set, which does not mean that goal setting techniques will automatically enhance actual school performance, of course, because that will also depend on other factors. One such factor is student perceptions of the consequences of goal setting, especially perception of affective consequences. To the extent that the affective consequences of goal setting are perceived as negative, it should be more difficult to persuade students to commit themselves to difficult and specific goals, no matter what the actual consequences are and even if other expected consequences are favorable. As a conclusion, students' expectations of affective consequences should support rather than disrupt beneficial effects of goal setting on performance and examining the extent to which students have negative affective expectations about goal setting is desired.

==Summary of main research findings ==
*A review of both laboratory and field studies on the effects of setting goals when performing a task found that in 90% of the studies: specific and challenging goals lead to higher performance than easy goals, "do your best" goals, or no goals. [task difficulty, goal specificity]
*A harder task led to better weight-lifting performance than an easier task when subjects were deceived as to the actual weights (Ness & Patton,1979) [task difficulty]
*Goals affect performance by directing attention, mobilizing effort, increasing persistence, and motivating strategy development.
*Goal setting is most likely to improve task performance when:
**The goals are specific and sufficiently challenging;
**The subjects have sufficient ability (and ability differences are controlled);
**Feedback is provided to show progress in relation to the goal, rewards such as money are given for goal attainment;
**The experimenter or manager is supportive, and assigned goals are accepted by the individual.
*No reliable individual differences have emerged in goal-setting studies, probably because the goals were typically assigned rather than self-set.( Need for achievement and self-esteem may be the most promising individual difference variables)
*Error could be reduced by changing initial goals
*Multiple goals: several tasks may be effectively coordinated through the use of multiple, goal dependent feedback loops
*The choice of initial goals: in many situation, the choice of initial goals is an important determinant of performance, especially when task feedback is slow or when tasks are not repetitive.
*Goals may be set close to levels of past performance on familiar tasks.
*Initial goals may be derived from higher level objectives which are hierarchically organized
*Initial goals may be externally influenced by social processed such as social comparison of modeling.

==References==

#Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969-1980. Edwin A. Locke, Lise M. Saari, Karyll N. ShawGary P. Latham
#A Control Systems Conceptualization of the Goal-Setting and Changing Process. (1982). Michael A. Campion, Robert G. Lord.
#Goal Commitment and the Goal-Setting Process: Problems, Prospects, and Proposals for Future Research. (1987).John R. Hollenbeck and Howard J. Klein.
#Goal Setting, Achievement Orientation, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meditational Analysis. (1994). Andrew J. Elliot, Judith M. Harackiewicz.
#Achievement Goals in the Classroom: Students' Learning Strategies and Motivation Processes. (1988).Carole Ames, Jennifer Archer.
#Student Expectations about Affective Correlates of Academic Goal Setting. (1991). Frank W. Wicker, Gall Brown, Anastasia S. Hagen, Wayne Boring, James A. Wiehe.

File:Power's study(1973).jpg

2009-03-27T05:21:00Z

Clare.xie:

Goal setting and its constructs

2009-03-27T05:20:07Z

Clare.xie: /* Feedback */

"Goal" has been defined simply as "something that the person wants to achieve" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 2). Goal setting theory assumes that human action is directed by conscious goals and intentions" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 4). "Goal setting" refers to a specific outcome that an individual is striving to achieve(Dweck, 1992).

==Goal setting==

The concept of goal setting falls within the broad domain of cognitive psychology and is consistent with cognitive behavior modification (Meichenbaum,1977). The present interest of researchers in goal setting has two sources, one academic and the other organizational. The academic source extends back in time from Ryan (1970) and G. Miller, Galanter, and Pribrani (1960), through Lewin, to the Wurzburg School and the associated concepts of intention, task, set, and level of aspiration (see Ryan, 1970, for a summary). The organizational source is traced from Management by Objectives programs, now widely used in industry (see Odiorne, 1978, for a summary), back to the Scientific Management movement founded by Frederick W, Taylor (1911/1967). These two strains of thought converge in the more recent work of Locke (1968), Latham (Latham & Yukl, 1975b), and others who have studied the effects of goal setting on task performance.Goal setting is also an important componentof social learning theory (Bandura, 1977).

Two major attributes of goal setting in the earlier research are Content and Intensity(Rand, 1967).

==Content of goal setting==

The content of a goal is the object or result being sought.

The main dimensions of goal content that have been studied most are specificity or clarity (the degree of quantitative precision with which the aim is specified)and difficulty (the degree of proficiency or level of performance sought). The terms task difficulty and goal difficulty are often used interchangeably.

'''Task difficulty:''' The evidence of a positive, linear relation between goal difficulty and task performance (assuming sufficient ability) was firstly found by Locke (1968), and more later studies have supported these findings. Four results in three experimental field studies demonstrated that harder goals led to better performance than easy goals.

'''Goal specificity:''' Specific hard goals versus "do best" goals or no goals. Previous research found that specific, challenging (difficult) goals led to higher output than vague goals such as "do your best" (Locke, 1968). Subsequent research has strongly supported these results, although in a number of studies, no distinction was made between groups told to do their best and those assigned no specific goals.

'''Goal Complexity''' refers to the number and interrelation of the results aimed for.

'''Goal Conflict''' refers to the degree to which attaining one goal negates or subverts attaining another.

==Intensity of Goal setting==

The Intensity of a goal pertains to the process of setting the goal or of determining how to reach it. It would be measured by such factors as the scope of the cognitive process, the degree of effort required, the importance of the goal, and the context in which it is set. Goal intensity may be related to goal content. For example, a more intense psychological process is needed to set complex goals and to figure out how to attain them than the process needed to set and attain simple goals.

==Goal commitment==

Goal commitment, according to Locke et al, (1981), refers to the determination to try for a goal. Commitment implies the extension of effort, over time, toward the accomplishment of an original goal and emphasizes an unwillingness to abandon or to lower the original goal (Campion & Lord, 1982). In addition, the emphasis is on commitment to difficult goals. There is little in the literature to advocate the use of easy goals. Commitment to difficult goals should also be distinguished from acceptance of difficult goals, which merely refers to the initial use of a goal assigned by another person as a referent. Goal acceptance does not necessarily imply that the individual is bound to the standard. The present review deals conceptually with goal commitment because commitment is more critical for predicting performance. For example, one can initially accept a difficult goal and yet not demonstrate subsequent commitment to that goal over time.

==Feedback==

Feedback is also called knowledge of result (Locke et al.). In Locke’s study, attempts were made to separate the effects of feedback (i.e., knowledge of results [KR]) from the effects of goal setting to determine whether KR directly influenced performance or whether its effects were mediated by goal-setting activity (Locke, 1967; Locke & Bryan, 1968, 1969a, 1969b; Locke, Cartledge, & Koeppel, 1968). In the most carefully controlled of these studies, all subjects with specific goals also received knowledge of their performance in relation to their goals; individuals in the KR conditions received knowledge of their actual scores presented in such a way as to preclude their use in setting goals. Such knowledge of scores did not lead to better performance than no knowledge of scores. The evidence from these and related studies indicated that knowledge of scores was not sufficient to improve task performance. However, since groups with goals and no KR were not included, these studies did not test the possibility that KR may be a necessary condition for goals to affect performance. In later [[Image:Power's study(1973)| having link here]], the linkage between goal setting and feedback within control systems was suggested. According to Powers, the referent sate to which environmental information is compared cal be thought of as a goal. Both goals and environmental (task) feedback are compared by the mechanism labeled “comparator”. If a sufficiently large discrepancy of error exists, some form of remedial action is triggered. The dependence of the comparator on both goals and feedback is quite consistent with recent goal-setting research demonstrating that neither goals nor feedback, by themselves, significantly affect performance. If either a meaningful goal or feedback is missing, no error can be detected and no error-reducing response will be initiated.

==Three measurements of performance==

'''Effort:''' Since different goals may require different amounts of effort, effort is mobilized simultaneously with direction in proportion to the perceived requirements of the goal or task. More effort would be expended on hard tasks (which are accepted) than on easy tasks. Higher workloads produce higher subjective effort, faster heart rates, and higher output per unit time than lower workloads.

'''Persistence''' is directed effort extended over time.

'''Strategy development:''' It involves developing strategies or action plans for attaining one's goals. Although strategy development is motivated by goals, the mechanism itself is cognitive in essence; it involves skill development or creative problem solving.

Goal setting and feedback are widely believed to affect performance positively through enhancing the information and motivation necessary for work performance (Earley, Northcraft, Lee, & Lituchy, 1990). Goal setting theory has proved to be among the most robust and useful theories in organizational science. Strong support has been found for two of Locke ( 1968 ) main postulates: Difficult goals lead to higher levels of performance than easy goals, and specific, difficult goals lead to higher performance than do vague, difficult goals ( Mento, Steel, & Karren, 1987; Tubbs, 1986). The performance benefit that goals produce is argued to stem from influencing the effort, persistence, and strategic direction of individual performance ( Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981).
Individual difference in laboratory study To date, individual differences have received little attention in the goal-setting literature, although several variables have been examined: demographic variable (education, sex, age, race, job tenure) and personality variable (need for achievement, need for independence, self-esteem, internal vs. external control), but little significant results are found due to the inconsistent individual differences in the laboratory study (Locke et al. 1981).

==Goal setting’s effect on student’s performance with classroom setting==

'''Student Expectations About Affective Correlates of Academic'''
Performance benefit of goal setting appear to be well documented in numerous studies: Performance often improves when difficult and specific goals have been set, which does not mean that goal setting techniques will automatically enhance actual school performance, of course, because that will also depend on other factors. One such factor is student perceptions of the consequences of goal setting, especially perception of affective consequences. To the extent that the affective consequences of goal setting are perceived as negative, it should be more difficult to persuade students to commit themselves to difficult and specific goals, no matter what the actual consequences are and even if other expected consequences are favorable. As a conclusion, students' expectations of affective consequences should support rather than disrupt beneficial effects of goal setting on performance and examining the extent to which students have negative affective expectations about goal setting is desired.

==Summary of main research findings ==
*A review of both laboratory and field studies on the effects of setting goals when performing a task found that in 90% of the studies: specific and challenging goals lead to higher performance than easy goals, "do your best" goals, or no goals. [task difficulty, goal specificity]
*A harder task led to better weight-lifting performance than an easier task when subjects were deceived as to the actual weights (Ness & Patton,1979) [task difficulty]
*Goals affect performance by directing attention, mobilizing effort, increasing persistence, and motivating strategy development.
*Goal setting is most likely to improve task performance when:
**The goals are specific and sufficiently challenging;
**The subjects have sufficient ability (and ability differences are controlled);
**Feedback is provided to show progress in relation to the goal, rewards such as money are given for goal attainment;
**The experimenter or manager is supportive, and assigned goals are accepted by the individual.
*No reliable individual differences have emerged in goal-setting studies, probably because the goals were typically assigned rather than self-set.( Need for achievement and self-esteem may be the most promising individual difference variables)
*Error could be reduced by changing initial goals
*Multiple goals: several tasks may be effectively coordinated through the use of multiple, goal dependent feedback loops
*The choice of initial goals: in many situation, the choice of initial goals is an important determinant of performance, especially when task feedback is slow or when tasks are not repetitive.
*Goals may be set close to levels of past performance on familiar tasks.
*Initial goals may be derived from higher level objectives which are hierarchically organized
*Initial goals may be externally influenced by social processed such as social comparison of modeling.

==References==

#Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969-1980. Edwin A. Locke, Lise M. Saari, Karyll N. ShawGary P. Latham
#A Control Systems Conceptualization of the Goal-Setting and Changing Process. (1982). Michael A. Campion, Robert G. Lord.
#Goal Commitment and the Goal-Setting Process: Problems, Prospects, and Proposals for Future Research. (1987).John R. Hollenbeck and Howard J. Klein.
#Goal Setting, Achievement Orientation, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meditational Analysis. (1994). Andrew J. Elliot, Judith M. Harackiewicz.
#Achievement Goals in the Classroom: Students' Learning Strategies and Motivation Processes. (1988).Carole Ames, Jennifer Archer.
#Student Expectations about Affective Correlates of Academic Goal Setting. (1991). Frank W. Wicker, Gall Brown, Anastasia S. Hagen, Wayne Boring, James A. Wiehe.

Goal setting and its constructs

2009-03-27T05:19:39Z

Clare.xie: /* Feedback */

"Goal" has been defined simply as "something that the person wants to achieve" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 2). Goal setting theory assumes that human action is directed by conscious goals and intentions" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 4). "Goal setting" refers to a specific outcome that an individual is striving to achieve(Dweck, 1992).

==Goal setting==

The concept of goal setting falls within the broad domain of cognitive psychology and is consistent with cognitive behavior modification (Meichenbaum,1977). The present interest of researchers in goal setting has two sources, one academic and the other organizational. The academic source extends back in time from Ryan (1970) and G. Miller, Galanter, and Pribrani (1960), through Lewin, to the Wurzburg School and the associated concepts of intention, task, set, and level of aspiration (see Ryan, 1970, for a summary). The organizational source is traced from Management by Objectives programs, now widely used in industry (see Odiorne, 1978, for a summary), back to the Scientific Management movement founded by Frederick W, Taylor (1911/1967). These two strains of thought converge in the more recent work of Locke (1968), Latham (Latham & Yukl, 1975b), and others who have studied the effects of goal setting on task performance.Goal setting is also an important componentof social learning theory (Bandura, 1977).

Two major attributes of goal setting in the earlier research are Content and Intensity(Rand, 1967).

==Content of goal setting==

The content of a goal is the object or result being sought.

The main dimensions of goal content that have been studied most are specificity or clarity (the degree of quantitative precision with which the aim is specified)and difficulty (the degree of proficiency or level of performance sought). The terms task difficulty and goal difficulty are often used interchangeably.

'''Task difficulty:''' The evidence of a positive, linear relation between goal difficulty and task performance (assuming sufficient ability) was firstly found by Locke (1968), and more later studies have supported these findings. Four results in three experimental field studies demonstrated that harder goals led to better performance than easy goals.

'''Goal specificity:''' Specific hard goals versus "do best" goals or no goals. Previous research found that specific, challenging (difficult) goals led to higher output than vague goals such as "do your best" (Locke, 1968). Subsequent research has strongly supported these results, although in a number of studies, no distinction was made between groups told to do their best and those assigned no specific goals.

'''Goal Complexity''' refers to the number and interrelation of the results aimed for.

'''Goal Conflict''' refers to the degree to which attaining one goal negates or subverts attaining another.

==Intensity of Goal setting==

The Intensity of a goal pertains to the process of setting the goal or of determining how to reach it. It would be measured by such factors as the scope of the cognitive process, the degree of effort required, the importance of the goal, and the context in which it is set. Goal intensity may be related to goal content. For example, a more intense psychological process is needed to set complex goals and to figure out how to attain them than the process needed to set and attain simple goals.

==Goal commitment==

Goal commitment, according to Locke et al, (1981), refers to the determination to try for a goal. Commitment implies the extension of effort, over time, toward the accomplishment of an original goal and emphasizes an unwillingness to abandon or to lower the original goal (Campion & Lord, 1982). In addition, the emphasis is on commitment to difficult goals. There is little in the literature to advocate the use of easy goals. Commitment to difficult goals should also be distinguished from acceptance of difficult goals, which merely refers to the initial use of a goal assigned by another person as a referent. Goal acceptance does not necessarily imply that the individual is bound to the standard. The present review deals conceptually with goal commitment because commitment is more critical for predicting performance. For example, one can initially accept a difficult goal and yet not demonstrate subsequent commitment to that goal over time.

==Feedback==

Feedback is also called knowledge of result (Locke et al.). In Locke’s study, attempts were made to separate the effects of feedback (i.e., knowledge of results [KR]) from the effects of goal setting to determine whether KR directly influenced performance or whether its effects were mediated by goal-setting activity (Locke, 1967; Locke & Bryan, 1968, 1969a, 1969b; Locke, Cartledge, & Koeppel, 1968). In the most carefully controlled of these studies, all subjects with specific goals also received knowledge of their performance in relation to their goals; individuals in the KR conditions received knowledge of their actual scores presented in such a way as to preclude their use in setting goals. Such knowledge of scores did not lead to better performance than no knowledge of scores. The evidence from these and related studies indicated that knowledge of scores was not sufficient to improve task performance. However, since groups with goals and no KR were not included, these studies did not test the possibility that KR may be a necessary condition for goals to affect performance. In later [[Image:Power's study(1973)]], the linkage between goal setting and feedback within control systems was suggested. According to Powers, the referent sate to which environmental information is compared cal be thought of as a goal. Both goals and environmental (task) feedback are compared by the mechanism labeled “comparator”. If a sufficiently large discrepancy of error exists, some form of remedial action is triggered. The dependence of the comparator on both goals and feedback is quite consistent with recent goal-setting research demonstrating that neither goals nor feedback, by themselves, significantly affect performance. If either a meaningful goal or feedback is missing, no error can be detected and no error-reducing response will be initiated.

==Three measurements of performance==

'''Effort:''' Since different goals may require different amounts of effort, effort is mobilized simultaneously with direction in proportion to the perceived requirements of the goal or task. More effort would be expended on hard tasks (which are accepted) than on easy tasks. Higher workloads produce higher subjective effort, faster heart rates, and higher output per unit time than lower workloads.

'''Persistence''' is directed effort extended over time.

'''Strategy development:''' It involves developing strategies or action plans for attaining one's goals. Although strategy development is motivated by goals, the mechanism itself is cognitive in essence; it involves skill development or creative problem solving.

Goal setting and feedback are widely believed to affect performance positively through enhancing the information and motivation necessary for work performance (Earley, Northcraft, Lee, & Lituchy, 1990). Goal setting theory has proved to be among the most robust and useful theories in organizational science. Strong support has been found for two of Locke ( 1968 ) main postulates: Difficult goals lead to higher levels of performance than easy goals, and specific, difficult goals lead to higher performance than do vague, difficult goals ( Mento, Steel, & Karren, 1987; Tubbs, 1986). The performance benefit that goals produce is argued to stem from influencing the effort, persistence, and strategic direction of individual performance ( Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981).
Individual difference in laboratory study To date, individual differences have received little attention in the goal-setting literature, although several variables have been examined: demographic variable (education, sex, age, race, job tenure) and personality variable (need for achievement, need for independence, self-esteem, internal vs. external control), but little significant results are found due to the inconsistent individual differences in the laboratory study (Locke et al. 1981).

==Goal setting’s effect on student’s performance with classroom setting==

'''Student Expectations About Affective Correlates of Academic'''
Performance benefit of goal setting appear to be well documented in numerous studies: Performance often improves when difficult and specific goals have been set, which does not mean that goal setting techniques will automatically enhance actual school performance, of course, because that will also depend on other factors. One such factor is student perceptions of the consequences of goal setting, especially perception of affective consequences. To the extent that the affective consequences of goal setting are perceived as negative, it should be more difficult to persuade students to commit themselves to difficult and specific goals, no matter what the actual consequences are and even if other expected consequences are favorable. As a conclusion, students' expectations of affective consequences should support rather than disrupt beneficial effects of goal setting on performance and examining the extent to which students have negative affective expectations about goal setting is desired.

==Summary of main research findings ==
*A review of both laboratory and field studies on the effects of setting goals when performing a task found that in 90% of the studies: specific and challenging goals lead to higher performance than easy goals, "do your best" goals, or no goals. [task difficulty, goal specificity]
*A harder task led to better weight-lifting performance than an easier task when subjects were deceived as to the actual weights (Ness & Patton,1979) [task difficulty]
*Goals affect performance by directing attention, mobilizing effort, increasing persistence, and motivating strategy development.
*Goal setting is most likely to improve task performance when:
**The goals are specific and sufficiently challenging;
**The subjects have sufficient ability (and ability differences are controlled);
**Feedback is provided to show progress in relation to the goal, rewards such as money are given for goal attainment;
**The experimenter or manager is supportive, and assigned goals are accepted by the individual.
*No reliable individual differences have emerged in goal-setting studies, probably because the goals were typically assigned rather than self-set.( Need for achievement and self-esteem may be the most promising individual difference variables)
*Error could be reduced by changing initial goals
*Multiple goals: several tasks may be effectively coordinated through the use of multiple, goal dependent feedback loops
*The choice of initial goals: in many situation, the choice of initial goals is an important determinant of performance, especially when task feedback is slow or when tasks are not repetitive.
*Goals may be set close to levels of past performance on familiar tasks.
*Initial goals may be derived from higher level objectives which are hierarchically organized
*Initial goals may be externally influenced by social processed such as social comparison of modeling.

==References==

#Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969-1980. Edwin A. Locke, Lise M. Saari, Karyll N. ShawGary P. Latham
#A Control Systems Conceptualization of the Goal-Setting and Changing Process. (1982). Michael A. Campion, Robert G. Lord.
#Goal Commitment and the Goal-Setting Process: Problems, Prospects, and Proposals for Future Research. (1987).John R. Hollenbeck and Howard J. Klein.
#Goal Setting, Achievement Orientation, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meditational Analysis. (1994). Andrew J. Elliot, Judith M. Harackiewicz.
#Achievement Goals in the Classroom: Students' Learning Strategies and Motivation Processes. (1988).Carole Ames, Jennifer Archer.
#Student Expectations about Affective Correlates of Academic Goal Setting. (1991). Frank W. Wicker, Gall Brown, Anastasia S. Hagen, Wayne Boring, James A. Wiehe.

Goal setting and its constructs

2009-03-27T05:13:08Z

Clare.xie: /* Feedback */

"Goal" has been defined simply as "something that the person wants to achieve" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 2). Goal setting theory assumes that human action is directed by conscious goals and intentions" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 4). "Goal setting" refers to a specific outcome that an individual is striving to achieve(Dweck, 1992).

==Goal setting==

The concept of goal setting falls within the broad domain of cognitive psychology and is consistent with cognitive behavior modification (Meichenbaum,1977). The present interest of researchers in goal setting has two sources, one academic and the other organizational. The academic source extends back in time from Ryan (1970) and G. Miller, Galanter, and Pribrani (1960), through Lewin, to the Wurzburg School and the associated concepts of intention, task, set, and level of aspiration (see Ryan, 1970, for a summary). The organizational source is traced from Management by Objectives programs, now widely used in industry (see Odiorne, 1978, for a summary), back to the Scientific Management movement founded by Frederick W, Taylor (1911/1967). These two strains of thought converge in the more recent work of Locke (1968), Latham (Latham & Yukl, 1975b), and others who have studied the effects of goal setting on task performance.Goal setting is also an important componentof social learning theory (Bandura, 1977).

Two major attributes of goal setting in the earlier research are Content and Intensity(Rand, 1967).

==Content of goal setting==

The content of a goal is the object or result being sought.

The main dimensions of goal content that have been studied most are specificity or clarity (the degree of quantitative precision with which the aim is specified)and difficulty (the degree of proficiency or level of performance sought). The terms task difficulty and goal difficulty are often used interchangeably.

'''Task difficulty:''' The evidence of a positive, linear relation between goal difficulty and task performance (assuming sufficient ability) was firstly found by Locke (1968), and more later studies have supported these findings. Four results in three experimental field studies demonstrated that harder goals led to better performance than easy goals.

'''Goal specificity:''' Specific hard goals versus "do best" goals or no goals. Previous research found that specific, challenging (difficult) goals led to higher output than vague goals such as "do your best" (Locke, 1968). Subsequent research has strongly supported these results, although in a number of studies, no distinction was made between groups told to do their best and those assigned no specific goals.

'''Goal Complexity''' refers to the number and interrelation of the results aimed for.

'''Goal Conflict''' refers to the degree to which attaining one goal negates or subverts attaining another.

==Intensity of Goal setting==

The Intensity of a goal pertains to the process of setting the goal or of determining how to reach it. It would be measured by such factors as the scope of the cognitive process, the degree of effort required, the importance of the goal, and the context in which it is set. Goal intensity may be related to goal content. For example, a more intense psychological process is needed to set complex goals and to figure out how to attain them than the process needed to set and attain simple goals.

==Goal commitment==

Goal commitment, according to Locke et al, (1981), refers to the determination to try for a goal. Commitment implies the extension of effort, over time, toward the accomplishment of an original goal and emphasizes an unwillingness to abandon or to lower the original goal (Campion & Lord, 1982). In addition, the emphasis is on commitment to difficult goals. There is little in the literature to advocate the use of easy goals. Commitment to difficult goals should also be distinguished from acceptance of difficult goals, which merely refers to the initial use of a goal assigned by another person as a referent. Goal acceptance does not necessarily imply that the individual is bound to the standard. The present review deals conceptually with goal commitment because commitment is more critical for predicting performance. For example, one can initially accept a difficult goal and yet not demonstrate subsequent commitment to that goal over time.

==Feedback==

Feedback is also called knowledge of result (Locke et al.). In Locke’s study, attempts were made to separate the effects of feedback (i.e., knowledge of results [KR]) from the effects of goal setting to determine whether KR directly influenced performance or whether its effects were mediated by goal-setting activity (Locke, 1967; Locke & Bryan, 1968, 1969a, 1969b; Locke, Cartledge, & Koeppel, 1968). In the most carefully controlled of these studies, all subjects with specific goals also received knowledge of their performance in relation to their goals; individuals in the KR conditions received knowledge of their actual scores presented in such a way as to preclude their use in setting goals. Such knowledge of scores did not lead to better performance than no knowledge of scores. The evidence from these and related studies indicated that knowledge of scores was not sufficient to improve task performance. However, since groups with goals and no KR were not included, these studies did not test the possibility that KR may be a necessary condition for goals to affect performance. In later [[Power's study(1973)]], the linkage between goal setting and feedback within control systems was suggested. According to Powers, the referent sate to which environmental information is compared cal be thought of as a goal. Both goals and environmental (task) feedback are compared by the mechanism labeled “comparator”. If a sufficiently large discrepancy of error exists, some form of remedial action is triggered. The dependence of the comparator on both goals and feedback is quite consistent with recent goal-setting research demonstrating that neither goals nor feedback, by themselves, significantly affect performance. If either a meaningful goal or feedback is missing, no error can be detected and no error-reducing response will be initiated.

==Three measurements of performance==

'''Effort:''' Since different goals may require different amounts of effort, effort is mobilized simultaneously with direction in proportion to the perceived requirements of the goal or task. More effort would be expended on hard tasks (which are accepted) than on easy tasks. Higher workloads produce higher subjective effort, faster heart rates, and higher output per unit time than lower workloads.

'''Persistence''' is directed effort extended over time.

'''Strategy development:''' It involves developing strategies or action plans for attaining one's goals. Although strategy development is motivated by goals, the mechanism itself is cognitive in essence; it involves skill development or creative problem solving.

Goal setting and feedback are widely believed to affect performance positively through enhancing the information and motivation necessary for work performance (Earley, Northcraft, Lee, & Lituchy, 1990). Goal setting theory has proved to be among the most robust and useful theories in organizational science. Strong support has been found for two of Locke ( 1968 ) main postulates: Difficult goals lead to higher levels of performance than easy goals, and specific, difficult goals lead to higher performance than do vague, difficult goals ( Mento, Steel, & Karren, 1987; Tubbs, 1986). The performance benefit that goals produce is argued to stem from influencing the effort, persistence, and strategic direction of individual performance ( Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981).
Individual difference in laboratory study To date, individual differences have received little attention in the goal-setting literature, although several variables have been examined: demographic variable (education, sex, age, race, job tenure) and personality variable (need for achievement, need for independence, self-esteem, internal vs. external control), but little significant results are found due to the inconsistent individual differences in the laboratory study (Locke et al. 1981).

==Goal setting’s effect on student’s performance with classroom setting==

'''Student Expectations About Affective Correlates of Academic'''
Performance benefit of goal setting appear to be well documented in numerous studies: Performance often improves when difficult and specific goals have been set, which does not mean that goal setting techniques will automatically enhance actual school performance, of course, because that will also depend on other factors. One such factor is student perceptions of the consequences of goal setting, especially perception of affective consequences. To the extent that the affective consequences of goal setting are perceived as negative, it should be more difficult to persuade students to commit themselves to difficult and specific goals, no matter what the actual consequences are and even if other expected consequences are favorable. As a conclusion, students' expectations of affective consequences should support rather than disrupt beneficial effects of goal setting on performance and examining the extent to which students have negative affective expectations about goal setting is desired.

==Summary of main research findings ==
*A review of both laboratory and field studies on the effects of setting goals when performing a task found that in 90% of the studies: specific and challenging goals lead to higher performance than easy goals, "do your best" goals, or no goals. [task difficulty, goal specificity]
*A harder task led to better weight-lifting performance than an easier task when subjects were deceived as to the actual weights (Ness & Patton,1979) [task difficulty]
*Goals affect performance by directing attention, mobilizing effort, increasing persistence, and motivating strategy development.
*Goal setting is most likely to improve task performance when:
**The goals are specific and sufficiently challenging;
**The subjects have sufficient ability (and ability differences are controlled);
**Feedback is provided to show progress in relation to the goal, rewards such as money are given for goal attainment;
**The experimenter or manager is supportive, and assigned goals are accepted by the individual.
*No reliable individual differences have emerged in goal-setting studies, probably because the goals were typically assigned rather than self-set.( Need for achievement and self-esteem may be the most promising individual difference variables)
*Error could be reduced by changing initial goals
*Multiple goals: several tasks may be effectively coordinated through the use of multiple, goal dependent feedback loops
*The choice of initial goals: in many situation, the choice of initial goals is an important determinant of performance, especially when task feedback is slow or when tasks are not repetitive.
*Goals may be set close to levels of past performance on familiar tasks.
*Initial goals may be derived from higher level objectives which are hierarchically organized
*Initial goals may be externally influenced by social processed such as social comparison of modeling.

==References==

#Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969-1980. Edwin A. Locke, Lise M. Saari, Karyll N. ShawGary P. Latham
#A Control Systems Conceptualization of the Goal-Setting and Changing Process. (1982). Michael A. Campion, Robert G. Lord.
#Goal Commitment and the Goal-Setting Process: Problems, Prospects, and Proposals for Future Research. (1987).John R. Hollenbeck and Howard J. Klein.
#Goal Setting, Achievement Orientation, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meditational Analysis. (1994). Andrew J. Elliot, Judith M. Harackiewicz.
#Achievement Goals in the Classroom: Students' Learning Strategies and Motivation Processes. (1988).Carole Ames, Jennifer Archer.
#Student Expectations about Affective Correlates of Academic Goal Setting. (1991). Frank W. Wicker, Gall Brown, Anastasia S. Hagen, Wayne Boring, James A. Wiehe.

Goal setting and its constructs

2009-03-27T05:12:24Z

Clare.xie: /* Feedback */

"Goal" has been defined simply as "something that the person wants to achieve" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 2). Goal setting theory assumes that human action is directed by conscious goals and intentions" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 4). "Goal setting" refers to a specific outcome that an individual is striving to achieve(Dweck, 1992).

==Goal setting==

The concept of goal setting falls within the broad domain of cognitive psychology and is consistent with cognitive behavior modification (Meichenbaum,1977). The present interest of researchers in goal setting has two sources, one academic and the other organizational. The academic source extends back in time from Ryan (1970) and G. Miller, Galanter, and Pribrani (1960), through Lewin, to the Wurzburg School and the associated concepts of intention, task, set, and level of aspiration (see Ryan, 1970, for a summary). The organizational source is traced from Management by Objectives programs, now widely used in industry (see Odiorne, 1978, for a summary), back to the Scientific Management movement founded by Frederick W, Taylor (1911/1967). These two strains of thought converge in the more recent work of Locke (1968), Latham (Latham & Yukl, 1975b), and others who have studied the effects of goal setting on task performance.Goal setting is also an important componentof social learning theory (Bandura, 1977).

Two major attributes of goal setting in the earlier research are Content and Intensity(Rand, 1967).

==Content of goal setting==

The content of a goal is the object or result being sought.

The main dimensions of goal content that have been studied most are specificity or clarity (the degree of quantitative precision with which the aim is specified)and difficulty (the degree of proficiency or level of performance sought). The terms task difficulty and goal difficulty are often used interchangeably.

'''Task difficulty:''' The evidence of a positive, linear relation between goal difficulty and task performance (assuming sufficient ability) was firstly found by Locke (1968), and more later studies have supported these findings. Four results in three experimental field studies demonstrated that harder goals led to better performance than easy goals.

'''Goal specificity:''' Specific hard goals versus "do best" goals or no goals. Previous research found that specific, challenging (difficult) goals led to higher output than vague goals such as "do your best" (Locke, 1968). Subsequent research has strongly supported these results, although in a number of studies, no distinction was made between groups told to do their best and those assigned no specific goals.

'''Goal Complexity''' refers to the number and interrelation of the results aimed for.

'''Goal Conflict''' refers to the degree to which attaining one goal negates or subverts attaining another.

==Intensity of Goal setting==

The Intensity of a goal pertains to the process of setting the goal or of determining how to reach it. It would be measured by such factors as the scope of the cognitive process, the degree of effort required, the importance of the goal, and the context in which it is set. Goal intensity may be related to goal content. For example, a more intense psychological process is needed to set complex goals and to figure out how to attain them than the process needed to set and attain simple goals.

==Goal commitment==

Goal commitment, according to Locke et al, (1981), refers to the determination to try for a goal. Commitment implies the extension of effort, over time, toward the accomplishment of an original goal and emphasizes an unwillingness to abandon or to lower the original goal (Campion & Lord, 1982). In addition, the emphasis is on commitment to difficult goals. There is little in the literature to advocate the use of easy goals. Commitment to difficult goals should also be distinguished from acceptance of difficult goals, which merely refers to the initial use of a goal assigned by another person as a referent. Goal acceptance does not necessarily imply that the individual is bound to the standard. The present review deals conceptually with goal commitment because commitment is more critical for predicting performance. For example, one can initially accept a difficult goal and yet not demonstrate subsequent commitment to that goal over time.

==Feedback==

Feedback is also called knowledge of result (Locke et al.). In Locke’s study, attempts were made to separate the effects of feedback (i.e., knowledge of results [KR]) from the effects of goal setting to determine whether KR directly influenced performance or whether its effects were mediated by goal-setting activity (Locke, 1967; Locke & Bryan, 1968, 1969a, 1969b; Locke, Cartledge, & Koeppel, 1968). In the most carefully controlled of these studies, all subjects with specific goals also received knowledge of their performance in relation to their goals; individuals in the KR conditions received knowledge of their actual scores presented in such a way as to preclude their use in setting goals. Such knowledge of scores did not lead to better performance than no knowledge of scores. The evidence from these and related studies indicated that knowledge of scores was not sufficient to improve task performance. However, since groups with goals and no KR were not included, these studies did not test the possibility that KR may be a necessary condition for goals to affect performance. In later [[Image:Power's study(1973).jpg]], the linkage between goal setting and feedback within control systems was suggested. According to Powers, the referent sate to which environmental information is compared cal be thought of as a goal. Both goals and environmental (task) feedback are compared by the mechanism labeled “comparator”. If a sufficiently large discrepancy of error exists, some form of remedial action is triggered. The dependence of the comparator on both goals and feedback is quite consistent with recent goal-setting research demonstrating that neither goals nor feedback, by themselves, significantly affect performance. If either a meaningful goal or feedback is missing, no error can be detected and no error-reducing response will be initiated.

==Three measurements of performance==

'''Effort:''' Since different goals may require different amounts of effort, effort is mobilized simultaneously with direction in proportion to the perceived requirements of the goal or task. More effort would be expended on hard tasks (which are accepted) than on easy tasks. Higher workloads produce higher subjective effort, faster heart rates, and higher output per unit time than lower workloads.

'''Persistence''' is directed effort extended over time.

'''Strategy development:''' It involves developing strategies or action plans for attaining one's goals. Although strategy development is motivated by goals, the mechanism itself is cognitive in essence; it involves skill development or creative problem solving.

Goal setting and feedback are widely believed to affect performance positively through enhancing the information and motivation necessary for work performance (Earley, Northcraft, Lee, & Lituchy, 1990). Goal setting theory has proved to be among the most robust and useful theories in organizational science. Strong support has been found for two of Locke ( 1968 ) main postulates: Difficult goals lead to higher levels of performance than easy goals, and specific, difficult goals lead to higher performance than do vague, difficult goals ( Mento, Steel, & Karren, 1987; Tubbs, 1986). The performance benefit that goals produce is argued to stem from influencing the effort, persistence, and strategic direction of individual performance ( Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981).
Individual difference in laboratory study To date, individual differences have received little attention in the goal-setting literature, although several variables have been examined: demographic variable (education, sex, age, race, job tenure) and personality variable (need for achievement, need for independence, self-esteem, internal vs. external control), but little significant results are found due to the inconsistent individual differences in the laboratory study (Locke et al. 1981).

==Goal setting’s effect on student’s performance with classroom setting==

'''Student Expectations About Affective Correlates of Academic'''
Performance benefit of goal setting appear to be well documented in numerous studies: Performance often improves when difficult and specific goals have been set, which does not mean that goal setting techniques will automatically enhance actual school performance, of course, because that will also depend on other factors. One such factor is student perceptions of the consequences of goal setting, especially perception of affective consequences. To the extent that the affective consequences of goal setting are perceived as negative, it should be more difficult to persuade students to commit themselves to difficult and specific goals, no matter what the actual consequences are and even if other expected consequences are favorable. As a conclusion, students' expectations of affective consequences should support rather than disrupt beneficial effects of goal setting on performance and examining the extent to which students have negative affective expectations about goal setting is desired.

==Summary of main research findings ==
*A review of both laboratory and field studies on the effects of setting goals when performing a task found that in 90% of the studies: specific and challenging goals lead to higher performance than easy goals, "do your best" goals, or no goals. [task difficulty, goal specificity]
*A harder task led to better weight-lifting performance than an easier task when subjects were deceived as to the actual weights (Ness & Patton,1979) [task difficulty]
*Goals affect performance by directing attention, mobilizing effort, increasing persistence, and motivating strategy development.
*Goal setting is most likely to improve task performance when:
**The goals are specific and sufficiently challenging;
**The subjects have sufficient ability (and ability differences are controlled);
**Feedback is provided to show progress in relation to the goal, rewards such as money are given for goal attainment;
**The experimenter or manager is supportive, and assigned goals are accepted by the individual.
*No reliable individual differences have emerged in goal-setting studies, probably because the goals were typically assigned rather than self-set.( Need for achievement and self-esteem may be the most promising individual difference variables)
*Error could be reduced by changing initial goals
*Multiple goals: several tasks may be effectively coordinated through the use of multiple, goal dependent feedback loops
*The choice of initial goals: in many situation, the choice of initial goals is an important determinant of performance, especially when task feedback is slow or when tasks are not repetitive.
*Goals may be set close to levels of past performance on familiar tasks.
*Initial goals may be derived from higher level objectives which are hierarchically organized
*Initial goals may be externally influenced by social processed such as social comparison of modeling.

==References==

#Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969-1980. Edwin A. Locke, Lise M. Saari, Karyll N. ShawGary P. Latham
#A Control Systems Conceptualization of the Goal-Setting and Changing Process. (1982). Michael A. Campion, Robert G. Lord.
#Goal Commitment and the Goal-Setting Process: Problems, Prospects, and Proposals for Future Research. (1987).John R. Hollenbeck and Howard J. Klein.
#Goal Setting, Achievement Orientation, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meditational Analysis. (1994). Andrew J. Elliot, Judith M. Harackiewicz.
#Achievement Goals in the Classroom: Students' Learning Strategies and Motivation Processes. (1988).Carole Ames, Jennifer Archer.
#Student Expectations about Affective Correlates of Academic Goal Setting. (1991). Frank W. Wicker, Gall Brown, Anastasia S. Hagen, Wayne Boring, James A. Wiehe.

Goal setting and its constructs

2009-03-27T05:09:08Z

Clare.xie: /* Goal setting’s effect on student’s performance with classroom setting */

"Goal" has been defined simply as "something that the person wants to achieve" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 2). Goal setting theory assumes that human action is directed by conscious goals and intentions" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 4). "Goal setting" refers to a specific outcome that an individual is striving to achieve(Dweck, 1992).

==Goal setting==

The concept of goal setting falls within the broad domain of cognitive psychology and is consistent with cognitive behavior modification (Meichenbaum,1977). The present interest of researchers in goal setting has two sources, one academic and the other organizational. The academic source extends back in time from Ryan (1970) and G. Miller, Galanter, and Pribrani (1960), through Lewin, to the Wurzburg School and the associated concepts of intention, task, set, and level of aspiration (see Ryan, 1970, for a summary). The organizational source is traced from Management by Objectives programs, now widely used in industry (see Odiorne, 1978, for a summary), back to the Scientific Management movement founded by Frederick W, Taylor (1911/1967). These two strains of thought converge in the more recent work of Locke (1968), Latham (Latham & Yukl, 1975b), and others who have studied the effects of goal setting on task performance.Goal setting is also an important componentof social learning theory (Bandura, 1977).

Two major attributes of goal setting in the earlier research are Content and Intensity(Rand, 1967).

==Content of goal setting==

The content of a goal is the object or result being sought.

The main dimensions of goal content that have been studied most are specificity or clarity (the degree of quantitative precision with which the aim is specified)and difficulty (the degree of proficiency or level of performance sought). The terms task difficulty and goal difficulty are often used interchangeably.

'''Task difficulty:''' The evidence of a positive, linear relation between goal difficulty and task performance (assuming sufficient ability) was firstly found by Locke (1968), and more later studies have supported these findings. Four results in three experimental field studies demonstrated that harder goals led to better performance than easy goals.

'''Goal specificity:''' Specific hard goals versus "do best" goals or no goals. Previous research found that specific, challenging (difficult) goals led to higher output than vague goals such as "do your best" (Locke, 1968). Subsequent research has strongly supported these results, although in a number of studies, no distinction was made between groups told to do their best and those assigned no specific goals.

'''Goal Complexity''' refers to the number and interrelation of the results aimed for.

'''Goal Conflict''' refers to the degree to which attaining one goal negates or subverts attaining another.

==Intensity of Goal setting==

The Intensity of a goal pertains to the process of setting the goal or of determining how to reach it. It would be measured by such factors as the scope of the cognitive process, the degree of effort required, the importance of the goal, and the context in which it is set. Goal intensity may be related to goal content. For example, a more intense psychological process is needed to set complex goals and to figure out how to attain them than the process needed to set and attain simple goals.

==Goal commitment==

Goal commitment, according to Locke et al, (1981), refers to the determination to try for a goal. Commitment implies the extension of effort, over time, toward the accomplishment of an original goal and emphasizes an unwillingness to abandon or to lower the original goal (Campion & Lord, 1982). In addition, the emphasis is on commitment to difficult goals. There is little in the literature to advocate the use of easy goals. Commitment to difficult goals should also be distinguished from acceptance of difficult goals, which merely refers to the initial use of a goal assigned by another person as a referent. Goal acceptance does not necessarily imply that the individual is bound to the standard. The present review deals conceptually with goal commitment because commitment is more critical for predicting performance. For example, one can initially accept a difficult goal and yet not demonstrate subsequent commitment to that goal over time.

==Feedback==

Feedback is also called knowledge of result (Locke et al.). In Locke’s study, attempts were made to separate the effects of feedback (i.e., knowledge of results [KR]) from the effects of goal setting to determine whether KR directly influenced performance or whether its effects were mediated by goal-setting activity (Locke, 1967; Locke & Bryan, 1968, 1969a, 1969b; Locke, Cartledge, & Koeppel, 1968). In the most carefully controlled of these studies, all subjects with specific goals also received knowledge of their performance in relation to their goals; individuals in the KR conditions received knowledge of their actual scores presented in such a way as to preclude their use in setting goals. Such knowledge of scores did not lead to better performance than no knowledge of scores. The evidence from these and related studies indicated that knowledge of scores was not sufficient to improve task performance. However, since groups with goals and no KR were not included, these studies did not test the possibility that KR may be a necessary condition for goals to affect performance. In later [[Image:Power’s study]] (1973), the linkage between goal setting and feedback within control systems was suggested. According to Powers, the referent sate to which environmental information is compared cal be thought of as a goal. Both goals and environmental (task) feedback are compared by the mechanism labeled “comparator”. If a sufficiently large discrepancy of error exists, some form of remedial action is triggered. The dependence of the comparator on both goals and feedback is quite consistent with recent goal-setting research demonstrating that neither goals nor feedback, by themselves, significantly affect performance. If either a meaningful goal or feedback is missing, no error can be detected and no error-reducing response will be initiated.

==Three measurements of performance==

'''Effort:''' Since different goals may require different amounts of effort, effort is mobilized simultaneously with direction in proportion to the perceived requirements of the goal or task. More effort would be expended on hard tasks (which are accepted) than on easy tasks. Higher workloads produce higher subjective effort, faster heart rates, and higher output per unit time than lower workloads.

'''Persistence''' is directed effort extended over time.

'''Strategy development:''' It involves developing strategies or action plans for attaining one's goals. Although strategy development is motivated by goals, the mechanism itself is cognitive in essence; it involves skill development or creative problem solving.

Goal setting and feedback are widely believed to affect performance positively through enhancing the information and motivation necessary for work performance (Earley, Northcraft, Lee, & Lituchy, 1990). Goal setting theory has proved to be among the most robust and useful theories in organizational science. Strong support has been found for two of Locke ( 1968 ) main postulates: Difficult goals lead to higher levels of performance than easy goals, and specific, difficult goals lead to higher performance than do vague, difficult goals ( Mento, Steel, & Karren, 1987; Tubbs, 1986). The performance benefit that goals produce is argued to stem from influencing the effort, persistence, and strategic direction of individual performance ( Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981).
Individual difference in laboratory study To date, individual differences have received little attention in the goal-setting literature, although several variables have been examined: demographic variable (education, sex, age, race, job tenure) and personality variable (need for achievement, need for independence, self-esteem, internal vs. external control), but little significant results are found due to the inconsistent individual differences in the laboratory study (Locke et al. 1981).

==Goal setting’s effect on student’s performance with classroom setting==

'''Student Expectations About Affective Correlates of Academic'''
Performance benefit of goal setting appear to be well documented in numerous studies: Performance often improves when difficult and specific goals have been set, which does not mean that goal setting techniques will automatically enhance actual school performance, of course, because that will also depend on other factors. One such factor is student perceptions of the consequences of goal setting, especially perception of affective consequences. To the extent that the affective consequences of goal setting are perceived as negative, it should be more difficult to persuade students to commit themselves to difficult and specific goals, no matter what the actual consequences are and even if other expected consequences are favorable. As a conclusion, students' expectations of affective consequences should support rather than disrupt beneficial effects of goal setting on performance and examining the extent to which students have negative affective expectations about goal setting is desired.

==Summary of main research findings ==
*A review of both laboratory and field studies on the effects of setting goals when performing a task found that in 90% of the studies: specific and challenging goals lead to higher performance than easy goals, "do your best" goals, or no goals. [task difficulty, goal specificity]
*A harder task led to better weight-lifting performance than an easier task when subjects were deceived as to the actual weights (Ness & Patton,1979) [task difficulty]
*Goals affect performance by directing attention, mobilizing effort, increasing persistence, and motivating strategy development.
*Goal setting is most likely to improve task performance when:
**The goals are specific and sufficiently challenging;
**The subjects have sufficient ability (and ability differences are controlled);
**Feedback is provided to show progress in relation to the goal, rewards such as money are given for goal attainment;
**The experimenter or manager is supportive, and assigned goals are accepted by the individual.
*No reliable individual differences have emerged in goal-setting studies, probably because the goals were typically assigned rather than self-set.( Need for achievement and self-esteem may be the most promising individual difference variables)
*Error could be reduced by changing initial goals
*Multiple goals: several tasks may be effectively coordinated through the use of multiple, goal dependent feedback loops
*The choice of initial goals: in many situation, the choice of initial goals is an important determinant of performance, especially when task feedback is slow or when tasks are not repetitive.
*Goals may be set close to levels of past performance on familiar tasks.
*Initial goals may be derived from higher level objectives which are hierarchically organized
*Initial goals may be externally influenced by social processed such as social comparison of modeling.

==References==

#Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969-1980. Edwin A. Locke, Lise M. Saari, Karyll N. ShawGary P. Latham
#A Control Systems Conceptualization of the Goal-Setting and Changing Process. (1982). Michael A. Campion, Robert G. Lord.
#Goal Commitment and the Goal-Setting Process: Problems, Prospects, and Proposals for Future Research. (1987).John R. Hollenbeck and Howard J. Klein.
#Goal Setting, Achievement Orientation, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meditational Analysis. (1994). Andrew J. Elliot, Judith M. Harackiewicz.
#Achievement Goals in the Classroom: Students' Learning Strategies and Motivation Processes. (1988).Carole Ames, Jennifer Archer.
#Student Expectations about Affective Correlates of Academic Goal Setting. (1991). Frank W. Wicker, Gall Brown, Anastasia S. Hagen, Wayne Boring, James A. Wiehe.

Goal setting and its constructs

2009-03-27T05:00:32Z

Clare.xie: /* Goal Setting */

"Goal" has been defined simply as "something that the person wants to achieve" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 2). Goal setting theory assumes that human action is directed by conscious goals and intentions" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 4). "Goal setting" refers to a specific outcome that an individual is striving to achieve(Dweck, 1992).

==Goal setting==

The concept of goal setting falls within the broad domain of cognitive psychology and is consistent with cognitive behavior modification (Meichenbaum,1977). The present interest of researchers in goal setting has two sources, one academic and the other organizational. The academic source extends back in time from Ryan (1970) and G. Miller, Galanter, and Pribrani (1960), through Lewin, to the Wurzburg School and the associated concepts of intention, task, set, and level of aspiration (see Ryan, 1970, for a summary). The organizational source is traced from Management by Objectives programs, now widely used in industry (see Odiorne, 1978, for a summary), back to the Scientific Management movement founded by Frederick W, Taylor (1911/1967). These two strains of thought converge in the more recent work of Locke (1968), Latham (Latham & Yukl, 1975b), and others who have studied the effects of goal setting on task performance.Goal setting is also an important componentof social learning theory (Bandura, 1977).

Two major attributes of goal setting in the earlier research are Content and Intensity(Rand, 1967).

==Content of goal setting==

The content of a goal is the object or result being sought.

The main dimensions of goal content that have been studied most are specificity or clarity (the degree of quantitative precision with which the aim is specified)and difficulty (the degree of proficiency or level of performance sought). The terms task difficulty and goal difficulty are often used interchangeably.

'''Task difficulty:''' The evidence of a positive, linear relation between goal difficulty and task performance (assuming sufficient ability) was firstly found by Locke (1968), and more later studies have supported these findings. Four results in three experimental field studies demonstrated that harder goals led to better performance than easy goals.

'''Goal specificity:''' Specific hard goals versus "do best" goals or no goals. Previous research found that specific, challenging (difficult) goals led to higher output than vague goals such as "do your best" (Locke, 1968). Subsequent research has strongly supported these results, although in a number of studies, no distinction was made between groups told to do their best and those assigned no specific goals.

'''Goal Complexity''' refers to the number and interrelation of the results aimed for.

'''Goal Conflict''' refers to the degree to which attaining one goal negates or subverts attaining another.

==Intensity of Goal setting==

The Intensity of a goal pertains to the process of setting the goal or of determining how to reach it. It would be measured by such factors as the scope of the cognitive process, the degree of effort required, the importance of the goal, and the context in which it is set. Goal intensity may be related to goal content. For example, a more intense psychological process is needed to set complex goals and to figure out how to attain them than the process needed to set and attain simple goals.

==Goal commitment==

Goal commitment, according to Locke et al, (1981), refers to the determination to try for a goal. Commitment implies the extension of effort, over time, toward the accomplishment of an original goal and emphasizes an unwillingness to abandon or to lower the original goal (Campion & Lord, 1982). In addition, the emphasis is on commitment to difficult goals. There is little in the literature to advocate the use of easy goals. Commitment to difficult goals should also be distinguished from acceptance of difficult goals, which merely refers to the initial use of a goal assigned by another person as a referent. Goal acceptance does not necessarily imply that the individual is bound to the standard. The present review deals conceptually with goal commitment because commitment is more critical for predicting performance. For example, one can initially accept a difficult goal and yet not demonstrate subsequent commitment to that goal over time.

==Feedback==

Feedback is also called knowledge of result (Locke et al.). In Locke’s study, attempts were made to separate the effects of feedback (i.e., knowledge of results [KR]) from the effects of goal setting to determine whether KR directly influenced performance or whether its effects were mediated by goal-setting activity (Locke, 1967; Locke & Bryan, 1968, 1969a, 1969b; Locke, Cartledge, & Koeppel, 1968). In the most carefully controlled of these studies, all subjects with specific goals also received knowledge of their performance in relation to their goals; individuals in the KR conditions received knowledge of their actual scores presented in such a way as to preclude their use in setting goals. Such knowledge of scores did not lead to better performance than no knowledge of scores. The evidence from these and related studies indicated that knowledge of scores was not sufficient to improve task performance. However, since groups with goals and no KR were not included, these studies did not test the possibility that KR may be a necessary condition for goals to affect performance. In later [[Image:Power’s study]] (1973), the linkage between goal setting and feedback within control systems was suggested. According to Powers, the referent sate to which environmental information is compared cal be thought of as a goal. Both goals and environmental (task) feedback are compared by the mechanism labeled “comparator”. If a sufficiently large discrepancy of error exists, some form of remedial action is triggered. The dependence of the comparator on both goals and feedback is quite consistent with recent goal-setting research demonstrating that neither goals nor feedback, by themselves, significantly affect performance. If either a meaningful goal or feedback is missing, no error can be detected and no error-reducing response will be initiated.

==Three measurements of performance==

'''Effort:''' Since different goals may require different amounts of effort, effort is mobilized simultaneously with direction in proportion to the perceived requirements of the goal or task. More effort would be expended on hard tasks (which are accepted) than on easy tasks. Higher workloads produce higher subjective effort, faster heart rates, and higher output per unit time than lower workloads.

'''Persistence''' is directed effort extended over time.

'''Strategy development:''' It involves developing strategies or action plans for attaining one's goals. Although strategy development is motivated by goals, the mechanism itself is cognitive in essence; it involves skill development or creative problem solving.

Goal setting and feedback are widely believed to affect performance positively through enhancing the information and motivation necessary for work performance (Earley, Northcraft, Lee, & Lituchy, 1990). Goal setting theory has proved to be among the most robust and useful theories in organizational science. Strong support has been found for two of Locke ( 1968 ) main postulates: Difficult goals lead to higher levels of performance than easy goals, and specific, difficult goals lead to higher performance than do vague, difficult goals ( Mento, Steel, & Karren, 1987; Tubbs, 1986). The performance benefit that goals produce is argued to stem from influencing the effort, persistence, and strategic direction of individual performance ( Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981).
Individual difference in laboratory study To date, individual differences have received little attention in the goal-setting literature, although several variables have been examined: demographic variable (education, sex, age, race, job tenure) and personality variable (need for achievement, need for independence, self-esteem, internal vs. external control), but little significant results are found due to the inconsistent individual differences in the laboratory study (Locke et al. 1981).

==Goal setting’s effect on student’s performance with classroom setting==

'''Student Expectations About Affective Correlates of Academic'''
Goal Setting Performance benefit of goal setting appear to be well documented in numerous studies: Performance often improves when difficult and specific goals have been set, which does not mean that goal setting techniques will automatically enhance actual school performance, of course, because that will also depend on other factors. One such factor is student perceptions of the consequences of goal setting, especially perception of affective consequences. To the extent that the affective consequences of goal setting are perceived as negative, it should be more difficult to persuade students to commit themselves to difficult and specific goals, no matter what the actual consequences are and even if other expected consequences are favorable. As a conclusion, students' expectations of affective consequences should support rather than disrupt beneficial effects of goal setting on performance and examining the extent to which students have negative affective expectations about goal setting is desired.

==Summary of main research findings ==
*A review of both laboratory and field studies on the effects of setting goals when performing a task found that in 90% of the studies: specific and challenging goals lead to higher performance than easy goals, "do your best" goals, or no goals. [task difficulty, goal specificity]
*A harder task led to better weight-lifting performance than an easier task when subjects were deceived as to the actual weights (Ness & Patton,1979) [task difficulty]
*Goals affect performance by directing attention, mobilizing effort, increasing persistence, and motivating strategy development.
*Goal setting is most likely to improve task performance when:
**The goals are specific and sufficiently challenging;
**The subjects have sufficient ability (and ability differences are controlled);
**Feedback is provided to show progress in relation to the goal, rewards such as money are given for goal attainment;
**The experimenter or manager is supportive, and assigned goals are accepted by the individual.
*No reliable individual differences have emerged in goal-setting studies, probably because the goals were typically assigned rather than self-set.( Need for achievement and self-esteem may be the most promising individual difference variables)
*Error could be reduced by changing initial goals
*Multiple goals: several tasks may be effectively coordinated through the use of multiple, goal dependent feedback loops
*The choice of initial goals: in many situation, the choice of initial goals is an important determinant of performance, especially when task feedback is slow or when tasks are not repetitive.
*Goals may be set close to levels of past performance on familiar tasks.
*Initial goals may be derived from higher level objectives which are hierarchically organized
*Initial goals may be externally influenced by social processed such as social comparison of modeling.

==References==

#Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969-1980. Edwin A. Locke, Lise M. Saari, Karyll N. ShawGary P. Latham
#A Control Systems Conceptualization of the Goal-Setting and Changing Process. (1982). Michael A. Campion, Robert G. Lord.
#Goal Commitment and the Goal-Setting Process: Problems, Prospects, and Proposals for Future Research. (1987).John R. Hollenbeck and Howard J. Klein.
#Goal Setting, Achievement Orientation, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meditational Analysis. (1994). Andrew J. Elliot, Judith M. Harackiewicz.
#Achievement Goals in the Classroom: Students' Learning Strategies and Motivation Processes. (1988).Carole Ames, Jennifer Archer.
#Student Expectations about Affective Correlates of Academic Goal Setting. (1991). Frank W. Wicker, Gall Brown, Anastasia S. Hagen, Wayne Boring, James A. Wiehe.

Goal setting and its constructs

2009-03-27T04:57:08Z

Clare.xie: /* Summary of main research findings */

"Goal" has been defined simply as "something that the person wants to achieve" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 2). Goal setting theory assumes that human action is directed by conscious goals and intentions" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 4). "Goal setting" refers to a specific outcome that an individual is striving to achieve(Dweck, 1992).

==Goal Setting==

The concept of goal setting falls within the broad domain of cognitive psychology and is consistent with cognitive behavior modification (Meichenbaum,1977). The present interest of researchers in goal setting has two sources, one academic and the other organizational. The academic source extends back in time from Ryan (1970) and G. Miller, Galanter, and Pribrani (1960), through Lewin, to the Wurzburg School and the associated concepts of intention, task, set, and level of aspiration (see Ryan, 1970, for a summary). The organizational source is traced from Management by Objectives programs, now widely used in industry (see Odiorne, 1978, for a summary), back to the Scientific Management movement founded by Frederick W, Taylor (1911/1967). These two strains of thought converge in the more recent work of Locke (1968), Latham (Latham & Yukl, 1975b), and others who have studied the effects of goal setting on task performance.Goal setting is also an important componentof social learning theory (Bandura, 1977).

Two major attributes of goal setting in the earlier research are Content and Intensity(Rand, 1967).

==Content of goal setting==

The content of a goal is the object or result being sought.

The main dimensions of goal content that have been studied most are specificity or clarity (the degree of quantitative precision with which the aim is specified)and difficulty (the degree of proficiency or level of performance sought). The terms task difficulty and goal difficulty are often used interchangeably.

'''Task difficulty:''' The evidence of a positive, linear relation between goal difficulty and task performance (assuming sufficient ability) was firstly found by Locke (1968), and more later studies have supported these findings. Four results in three experimental field studies demonstrated that harder goals led to better performance than easy goals.

'''Goal specificity:''' Specific hard goals versus "do best" goals or no goals. Previous research found that specific, challenging (difficult) goals led to higher output than vague goals such as "do your best" (Locke, 1968). Subsequent research has strongly supported these results, although in a number of studies, no distinction was made between groups told to do their best and those assigned no specific goals.

'''Goal Complexity''' refers to the number and interrelation of the results aimed for.

'''Goal Conflict''' refers to the degree to which attaining one goal negates or subverts attaining another.

==Intensity of Goal setting==

The Intensity of a goal pertains to the process of setting the goal or of determining how to reach it. It would be measured by such factors as the scope of the cognitive process, the degree of effort required, the importance of the goal, and the context in which it is set. Goal intensity may be related to goal content. For example, a more intense psychological process is needed to set complex goals and to figure out how to attain them than the process needed to set and attain simple goals.

==Goal commitment==

Goal commitment, according to Locke et al, (1981), refers to the determination to try for a goal. Commitment implies the extension of effort, over time, toward the accomplishment of an original goal and emphasizes an unwillingness to abandon or to lower the original goal (Campion & Lord, 1982). In addition, the emphasis is on commitment to difficult goals. There is little in the literature to advocate the use of easy goals. Commitment to difficult goals should also be distinguished from acceptance of difficult goals, which merely refers to the initial use of a goal assigned by another person as a referent. Goal acceptance does not necessarily imply that the individual is bound to the standard. The present review deals conceptually with goal commitment because commitment is more critical for predicting performance. For example, one can initially accept a difficult goal and yet not demonstrate subsequent commitment to that goal over time.

==Feedback==

Feedback is also called knowledge of result (Locke et al.). In Locke’s study, attempts were made to separate the effects of feedback (i.e., knowledge of results [KR]) from the effects of goal setting to determine whether KR directly influenced performance or whether its effects were mediated by goal-setting activity (Locke, 1967; Locke & Bryan, 1968, 1969a, 1969b; Locke, Cartledge, & Koeppel, 1968). In the most carefully controlled of these studies, all subjects with specific goals also received knowledge of their performance in relation to their goals; individuals in the KR conditions received knowledge of their actual scores presented in such a way as to preclude their use in setting goals. Such knowledge of scores did not lead to better performance than no knowledge of scores. The evidence from these and related studies indicated that knowledge of scores was not sufficient to improve task performance. However, since groups with goals and no KR were not included, these studies did not test the possibility that KR may be a necessary condition for goals to affect performance. In later [[Image:Power’s study]] (1973), the linkage between goal setting and feedback within control systems was suggested. According to Powers, the referent sate to which environmental information is compared cal be thought of as a goal. Both goals and environmental (task) feedback are compared by the mechanism labeled “comparator”. If a sufficiently large discrepancy of error exists, some form of remedial action is triggered. The dependence of the comparator on both goals and feedback is quite consistent with recent goal-setting research demonstrating that neither goals nor feedback, by themselves, significantly affect performance. If either a meaningful goal or feedback is missing, no error can be detected and no error-reducing response will be initiated.

==Three measurements of performance==

'''Effort:''' Since different goals may require different amounts of effort, effort is mobilized simultaneously with direction in proportion to the perceived requirements of the goal or task. More effort would be expended on hard tasks (which are accepted) than on easy tasks. Higher workloads produce higher subjective effort, faster heart rates, and higher output per unit time than lower workloads.

'''Persistence''' is directed effort extended over time.

'''Strategy development:''' It involves developing strategies or action plans for attaining one's goals. Although strategy development is motivated by goals, the mechanism itself is cognitive in essence; it involves skill development or creative problem solving.

Goal setting and feedback are widely believed to affect performance positively through enhancing the information and motivation necessary for work performance (Earley, Northcraft, Lee, & Lituchy, 1990). Goal setting theory has proved to be among the most robust and useful theories in organizational science. Strong support has been found for two of Locke ( 1968 ) main postulates: Difficult goals lead to higher levels of performance than easy goals, and specific, difficult goals lead to higher performance than do vague, difficult goals ( Mento, Steel, & Karren, 1987; Tubbs, 1986). The performance benefit that goals produce is argued to stem from influencing the effort, persistence, and strategic direction of individual performance ( Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981).
Individual difference in laboratory study To date, individual differences have received little attention in the goal-setting literature, although several variables have been examined: demographic variable (education, sex, age, race, job tenure) and personality variable (need for achievement, need for independence, self-esteem, internal vs. external control), but little significant results are found due to the inconsistent individual differences in the laboratory study (Locke et al. 1981).

==Goal setting’s effect on student’s performance with classroom setting==

'''Student Expectations About Affective Correlates of Academic'''
Goal Setting Performance benefit of goal setting appear to be well documented in numerous studies: Performance often improves when difficult and specific goals have been set, which does not mean that goal setting techniques will automatically enhance actual school performance, of course, because that will also depend on other factors. One such factor is student perceptions of the consequences of goal setting, especially perception of affective consequences. To the extent that the affective consequences of goal setting are perceived as negative, it should be more difficult to persuade students to commit themselves to difficult and specific goals, no matter what the actual consequences are and even if other expected consequences are favorable. As a conclusion, students' expectations of affective consequences should support rather than disrupt beneficial effects of goal setting on performance and examining the extent to which students have negative affective expectations about goal setting is desired.

==Summary of main research findings ==
*A review of both laboratory and field studies on the effects of setting goals when performing a task found that in 90% of the studies: specific and challenging goals lead to higher performance than easy goals, "do your best" goals, or no goals. [task difficulty, goal specificity]
*A harder task led to better weight-lifting performance than an easier task when subjects were deceived as to the actual weights (Ness & Patton,1979) [task difficulty]
*Goals affect performance by directing attention, mobilizing effort, increasing persistence, and motivating strategy development.
*Goal setting is most likely to improve task performance when:
**The goals are specific and sufficiently challenging;
**The subjects have sufficient ability (and ability differences are controlled);
**Feedback is provided to show progress in relation to the goal, rewards such as money are given for goal attainment;
**The experimenter or manager is supportive, and assigned goals are accepted by the individual.
*No reliable individual differences have emerged in goal-setting studies, probably because the goals were typically assigned rather than self-set.( Need for achievement and self-esteem may be the most promising individual difference variables)
*Error could be reduced by changing initial goals
*Multiple goals: several tasks may be effectively coordinated through the use of multiple, goal dependent feedback loops
*The choice of initial goals: in many situation, the choice of initial goals is an important determinant of performance, especially when task feedback is slow or when tasks are not repetitive.
*Goals may be set close to levels of past performance on familiar tasks.
*Initial goals may be derived from higher level objectives which are hierarchically organized
*Initial goals may be externally influenced by social processed such as social comparison of modeling.

==References==

#Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969-1980. Edwin A. Locke, Lise M. Saari, Karyll N. ShawGary P. Latham
#A Control Systems Conceptualization of the Goal-Setting and Changing Process. (1982). Michael A. Campion, Robert G. Lord.
#Goal Commitment and the Goal-Setting Process: Problems, Prospects, and Proposals for Future Research. (1987).John R. Hollenbeck and Howard J. Klein.
#Goal Setting, Achievement Orientation, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meditational Analysis. (1994). Andrew J. Elliot, Judith M. Harackiewicz.
#Achievement Goals in the Classroom: Students' Learning Strategies and Motivation Processes. (1988).Carole Ames, Jennifer Archer.
#Student Expectations about Affective Correlates of Academic Goal Setting. (1991). Frank W. Wicker, Gall Brown, Anastasia S. Hagen, Wayne Boring, James A. Wiehe.

Goal setting and its constructs

2009-03-27T04:56:49Z

Clare.xie: /* Summary of main research findings */

"Goal" has been defined simply as "something that the person wants to achieve" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 2). Goal setting theory assumes that human action is directed by conscious goals and intentions" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 4). "Goal setting" refers to a specific outcome that an individual is striving to achieve(Dweck, 1992).

==Goal Setting==

The concept of goal setting falls within the broad domain of cognitive psychology and is consistent with cognitive behavior modification (Meichenbaum,1977). The present interest of researchers in goal setting has two sources, one academic and the other organizational. The academic source extends back in time from Ryan (1970) and G. Miller, Galanter, and Pribrani (1960), through Lewin, to the Wurzburg School and the associated concepts of intention, task, set, and level of aspiration (see Ryan, 1970, for a summary). The organizational source is traced from Management by Objectives programs, now widely used in industry (see Odiorne, 1978, for a summary), back to the Scientific Management movement founded by Frederick W, Taylor (1911/1967). These two strains of thought converge in the more recent work of Locke (1968), Latham (Latham & Yukl, 1975b), and others who have studied the effects of goal setting on task performance.Goal setting is also an important componentof social learning theory (Bandura, 1977).

Two major attributes of goal setting in the earlier research are Content and Intensity(Rand, 1967).

==Content of goal setting==

The content of a goal is the object or result being sought.

The main dimensions of goal content that have been studied most are specificity or clarity (the degree of quantitative precision with which the aim is specified)and difficulty (the degree of proficiency or level of performance sought). The terms task difficulty and goal difficulty are often used interchangeably.

'''Task difficulty:''' The evidence of a positive, linear relation between goal difficulty and task performance (assuming sufficient ability) was firstly found by Locke (1968), and more later studies have supported these findings. Four results in three experimental field studies demonstrated that harder goals led to better performance than easy goals.

'''Goal specificity:''' Specific hard goals versus "do best" goals or no goals. Previous research found that specific, challenging (difficult) goals led to higher output than vague goals such as "do your best" (Locke, 1968). Subsequent research has strongly supported these results, although in a number of studies, no distinction was made between groups told to do their best and those assigned no specific goals.

'''Goal Complexity''' refers to the number and interrelation of the results aimed for.

'''Goal Conflict''' refers to the degree to which attaining one goal negates or subverts attaining another.

==Intensity of Goal setting==

The Intensity of a goal pertains to the process of setting the goal or of determining how to reach it. It would be measured by such factors as the scope of the cognitive process, the degree of effort required, the importance of the goal, and the context in which it is set. Goal intensity may be related to goal content. For example, a more intense psychological process is needed to set complex goals and to figure out how to attain them than the process needed to set and attain simple goals.

==Goal commitment==

Goal commitment, according to Locke et al, (1981), refers to the determination to try for a goal. Commitment implies the extension of effort, over time, toward the accomplishment of an original goal and emphasizes an unwillingness to abandon or to lower the original goal (Campion & Lord, 1982). In addition, the emphasis is on commitment to difficult goals. There is little in the literature to advocate the use of easy goals. Commitment to difficult goals should also be distinguished from acceptance of difficult goals, which merely refers to the initial use of a goal assigned by another person as a referent. Goal acceptance does not necessarily imply that the individual is bound to the standard. The present review deals conceptually with goal commitment because commitment is more critical for predicting performance. For example, one can initially accept a difficult goal and yet not demonstrate subsequent commitment to that goal over time.

==Feedback==

Feedback is also called knowledge of result (Locke et al.). In Locke’s study, attempts were made to separate the effects of feedback (i.e., knowledge of results [KR]) from the effects of goal setting to determine whether KR directly influenced performance or whether its effects were mediated by goal-setting activity (Locke, 1967; Locke & Bryan, 1968, 1969a, 1969b; Locke, Cartledge, & Koeppel, 1968). In the most carefully controlled of these studies, all subjects with specific goals also received knowledge of their performance in relation to their goals; individuals in the KR conditions received knowledge of their actual scores presented in such a way as to preclude their use in setting goals. Such knowledge of scores did not lead to better performance than no knowledge of scores. The evidence from these and related studies indicated that knowledge of scores was not sufficient to improve task performance. However, since groups with goals and no KR were not included, these studies did not test the possibility that KR may be a necessary condition for goals to affect performance. In later [[Image:Power’s study]] (1973), the linkage between goal setting and feedback within control systems was suggested. According to Powers, the referent sate to which environmental information is compared cal be thought of as a goal. Both goals and environmental (task) feedback are compared by the mechanism labeled “comparator”. If a sufficiently large discrepancy of error exists, some form of remedial action is triggered. The dependence of the comparator on both goals and feedback is quite consistent with recent goal-setting research demonstrating that neither goals nor feedback, by themselves, significantly affect performance. If either a meaningful goal or feedback is missing, no error can be detected and no error-reducing response will be initiated.

==Three measurements of performance==

'''Effort:''' Since different goals may require different amounts of effort, effort is mobilized simultaneously with direction in proportion to the perceived requirements of the goal or task. More effort would be expended on hard tasks (which are accepted) than on easy tasks. Higher workloads produce higher subjective effort, faster heart rates, and higher output per unit time than lower workloads.

'''Persistence''' is directed effort extended over time.

'''Strategy development:''' It involves developing strategies or action plans for attaining one's goals. Although strategy development is motivated by goals, the mechanism itself is cognitive in essence; it involves skill development or creative problem solving.

Goal setting and feedback are widely believed to affect performance positively through enhancing the information and motivation necessary for work performance (Earley, Northcraft, Lee, & Lituchy, 1990). Goal setting theory has proved to be among the most robust and useful theories in organizational science. Strong support has been found for two of Locke ( 1968 ) main postulates: Difficult goals lead to higher levels of performance than easy goals, and specific, difficult goals lead to higher performance than do vague, difficult goals ( Mento, Steel, & Karren, 1987; Tubbs, 1986). The performance benefit that goals produce is argued to stem from influencing the effort, persistence, and strategic direction of individual performance ( Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981).
Individual difference in laboratory study To date, individual differences have received little attention in the goal-setting literature, although several variables have been examined: demographic variable (education, sex, age, race, job tenure) and personality variable (need for achievement, need for independence, self-esteem, internal vs. external control), but little significant results are found due to the inconsistent individual differences in the laboratory study (Locke et al. 1981).

==Goal setting’s effect on student’s performance with classroom setting==

'''Student Expectations About Affective Correlates of Academic'''
Goal Setting Performance benefit of goal setting appear to be well documented in numerous studies: Performance often improves when difficult and specific goals have been set, which does not mean that goal setting techniques will automatically enhance actual school performance, of course, because that will also depend on other factors. One such factor is student perceptions of the consequences of goal setting, especially perception of affective consequences. To the extent that the affective consequences of goal setting are perceived as negative, it should be more difficult to persuade students to commit themselves to difficult and specific goals, no matter what the actual consequences are and even if other expected consequences are favorable. As a conclusion, students' expectations of affective consequences should support rather than disrupt beneficial effects of goal setting on performance and examining the extent to which students have negative affective expectations about goal setting is desired.

==Summary of main research findings ==
*A review of both laboratory and field studies on the effects of setting goals when performing a task found that in 90% of the studies: specific and challenging goals lead to higher performance than easy goals, "do your best" goals, or no goals. [task difficulty, goal specificity]
*A harder task led to better weight-lifting performance than an easier task when subjects were deceived as to the actual weights (Ness & Patton,1979) [task difficulty]
*Goals affect performance by directing attention, mobilizing effort, increasing persistence, and motivating strategy development.
*Goal setting is most likely to improve task performance when
**The goals are specific and sufficiently challenging;
**The subjects have sufficient ability (and ability differences are controlled);
**Feedback is provided to show progress in relation to the goal, rewards such as money are given for goal attainment;
**The experimenter or manager is supportive, and assigned goals are accepted by the individual.
*No reliable individual differences have emerged in goal-setting studies, probably because the goals were typically assigned rather than self-set.( Need for achievement and self-esteem may be the most promising individual difference variables)
*Error could be reduced by changing initial goals
*Multiple goals: several tasks may be effectively coordinated through the use of multiple, goal dependent feedback loops
*The choice of initial goals: in many situation, the choice of initial goals is an important determinant of performance, especially when task feedback is slow or when tasks are not repetitive.
*Goals may be set close to levels of past performance on familiar tasks.
*Initial goals may be derived from higher level objectives which are hierarchically organized
*Initial goals may be externally influenced by social processed such as social comparison of modeling.

==References==

#Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969-1980. Edwin A. Locke, Lise M. Saari, Karyll N. ShawGary P. Latham
#A Control Systems Conceptualization of the Goal-Setting and Changing Process. (1982). Michael A. Campion, Robert G. Lord.
#Goal Commitment and the Goal-Setting Process: Problems, Prospects, and Proposals for Future Research. (1987).John R. Hollenbeck and Howard J. Klein.
#Goal Setting, Achievement Orientation, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meditational Analysis. (1994). Andrew J. Elliot, Judith M. Harackiewicz.
#Achievement Goals in the Classroom: Students' Learning Strategies and Motivation Processes. (1988).Carole Ames, Jennifer Archer.
#Student Expectations about Affective Correlates of Academic Goal Setting. (1991). Frank W. Wicker, Gall Brown, Anastasia S. Hagen, Wayne Boring, James A. Wiehe.