Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
net/publication/262084861
CITATIONS READS
39 5,733
3 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Aleidine Moeller on 27 June 2018.
The connection between goals and student motivation has been widely investigated in the
research literature, but the relationship of goal setting and student achievement at the class-
room level has remained largely unexplored. This article reports the findings of a 5-year
quasi-experimental study examining goal setting and student achievement in the high school
Spanish language classroom. The implementation of LinguaFolio, a portfolio that focuses on
student self-assessment, goal setting, and collection of evidence of language achievement, was
introduced into 23 high schools with a total of 1,273 students. By using a hierarchical linear
model, researchers were able to analyze the relationship between goal setting and student
achievement across time at both the individual student and teacher levels. A correlational anal-
ysis of the goal-setting process and language proficiency scores reveals a statistically significant
relationship between the goal-setting process and language achievement (p < .01).
between years 3 and 4. The decrease in mean relationships but rather growth relationships that
scores from the third year to the fourth year for account for variation due to student, teacher, and
both goal setting (µ = 2.98, 2.10) and action other predictors.
plan (µ = 2.97, 2.67), coupled with a decrease in
standard deviation for goal setting (SD = 0.956,
0.973), action plan (SD = 0.973, 0.381), and re- Empty and Unconditional Models
flection (SD = 0.825, 0.434), calls for a closer
analysis of the data. Results may not accurately To build a model in HLM, researchers be-
depict growth because conducting aggregate de- gan with a basic, or empty, model. The empty
scriptive analyses of means considers the scores model aimed to reveal the source of variance in
even of those students who may be writing goals the absence of specific predictors. In this case,
for the first time as third- or fourth-year Spanish goal-setting process predictors were absent in the
students. When considering the data represented empty model. A three-level empty model (ran-
in Table 2, the third- and fourth-year declines may dom intercept only) was fitted for each depen-
result from analyzing the data in aggregate form dent variable (STAMP reading, writing, speaking
without considering sample attrition or retention. scores). The three levels in this model represent
With disaggregation of the data to represent solely measurement occasion (level 1), student (level
students participating in all 4 years of consecu- 2), and teacher (level 3). The random effects at
tive levels of Spanish instruction, the sample size each level and the interclass correlations (ICCs)
decreases significantly (n = 24). Conducting an are depicted in Table 4.
analysis with such a small sample risks produc- As is evident from Table 4, some variance in
ing questionable results. As such, the descriptive STAMP outcomes can be accounted for by stu-
analysis primarily served as a source of guidance dent and teacher differences. For example, 35.4%
as researchers continued with their data analysis. of the variance for STAMP writing can be ac-
A correlational analysis of the goal-setting pro- counted for by student difference (this includes
cess and STAMP assessment variables reveals a the teacher difference by definition) and 22.7%
statistically significant relationship between each can be attributed to teacher difference. Sixty-four
component of the goal-setting process and each percent of the 35.4% student difference can be
component of the STAMP assessment (p < .01). attributed to teacher differences.
The results of the correlational analysis are de- Level of Spanish, centered at the first year of
picted in Table 3. Restricting the investigation Spanish, was then included in the empty model.
of relationships to a correlational analysis ne- Due to the limited levels of Spanish (four), re-
glects potential differences resulting from stu- searchers chose to not pursue more complex
dent, teacher, and other predictors. HLM was models such as quadratic or cubic models, opting
therefore adopted to further investigate the rela- to remain with the linear model. It was found that
tionship between goal setting and student achieve- including the random slope at the student level
ment. HLM allows for a deeper understanding of did not improve the model fit for STAMP writ-
the relationship between goal setting and achieve- ing and STAMP speaking (deviance difference =
ment, with the emphasis no longer on snapshot 2.78; !df = 2, p > .05; deviance difference =
Aleidine J. Moeller, Janine M. Theiler, and Chaorong Wu 161
TABLE 4
Random Effects for Empty Models and Interclass Correlations
STAMP Writing STAMP Speaking STAMP Reading
27.7; !df = 2; p > .05, respectively) but did im- the STAMP writing score is 1.54 for a student in
prove for STAMP reading (deviance difference = his or her first year of Spanish study, with the
77; !df = 2, p < .05). Thus, the baseline model mean of the combined scores for all students
for STAMP writing and STAMP speaking did not of a teacher (the “teacher mean score”) of 2
include random slope, but the baseline model for for goal setting and 2.4 for action plan writing,
STAMP reading did include random slope at the with the individual student mean goal-setting and
student level. action plan scores equal to the teacher’s mean
scores, and with the student goal-setting and ac-
Conditional Models tion plan scores considered to be average. The
level of Spanish of 0.683 implies that comple-
Goal-setting and action plan variables were then tion of additional years of Spanish relates to a
included in the baseline model. These two vari- 0.683 increase in STAMP writing score for each
ables were at the measurement occasion level year.
(level 1), and three new predictors were estab- The teacher-level goal setting of 0.17 implies
lished for both goal-setting and action plan vari- that the STAMP writing score of a student in-
ables. The teacher-level predictor (level 3) was creases by 0.17 if the average goal-setting score
represented by the mean scores of all students of the teacher is 1 unit higher (average score
for an individual teacher. For goal setting, this of a teacher = average of all student scores of
was centered at 2, for action plan writing it was that teacher). The student-level goal setting of
centered at 2.4. The student-level predictor (level 0.283 implies that a student’s STAMP writing score
2) was represented by the difference between the increases by 0.283 if the student’s goal-setting
mean scores for an individual student and the score increases by 1 unit. The measurement oc-
mean score attributed to all students of the cor- casion level goal setting of 0.005 implies that the
responding individual teacher. The difference of STAMP writing score increases by 0.005 if a stu-
scores associated with each Spanish level and the dent’s goal-setting score is 1 unit higher than the
means of an individual student served as the mea- average.
surement occasion level predictor (level 1). Thus, The teacher-level action plan writing of 0.369
six covariates were created and were included into implies that the STAMP writing score of a stu-
the baseline model. The results are shown in Table dent increases by 0.369 if the average action plan
5. The regression equations for the final model of writing score of the teacher is 1 unit higher. The
STAMP writing, speaking, and reading are pro- student-level action plan writing of 0.162 implies
vided in Appendix C. that a student’s STAMP writing score increases by
Hierarchical linear modeling results are inter- 0.162 if the student’s action plan writing score
preted in the same manner for STAMP read- increases by 1 unit. The measurement occasion
ing, writing, and speaking (Table 5). Results for level action plan writing of 0.214 implies that the
STAMP writing and the goal-setting process will STAMP writing score increases by 0.214 if the ac-
be explained as a representative model of HLM tion plan writing score is 1 unit higher than aver-
interpretation. The 1.54 intercept implies that age. This interpretation of the HLM results would
162 The Modern Language Journal 96 (2012)
TABLE 5
Parameter Estimates and Model Fit Statistics for Final Conditional Models
STAMP Writing STAMP Speaking STAMP Reading
Parameters Estimate SE p-Value Estimate SE p-Value Estimate SE p-Value
Fixed Effects
Intercept 1.54 0.153 <.0001 1.32 0.123 <.0001 1.3 0.074 <.0001
Level of Spanish 0.683 0.035 <.0001 0.605 0.034 <.0001 0.373 0.033 <.0001
BWT Goal 0.17 0.283 .557 0.42 0.223 .078 0.256 0.127 .061
BWS Goal 0.283 0.052 <.0001 0.19 0.052 .0003 0.244 0.047 <.0001
WS Goal 0.005 0.085 .952 –0.003 0.008 .973 0.106 0.08 .188
BWT Plan 0.369 0.273 .198 0.151 0.214 .493 0.03 0.117 .799
BWS Plan 0.162 0.046 .0004 0.159 0.045 .0005 –0.043 0.041 .29
WS Plan 0.214 0.07 .0027 0.111 0.067 .102 –0.07 0.066 .291
Random Effects
Residual Variance 0.335 0.033 0.311 0.031 0.313 0.011
Intercept Variance 0.142 0.061 0.08 0.033 0.015 0.033
BWT
Intercept Variance 0.154 0.035 0.149 0.033 0.033 0.039
BWS
Intercept-Linear 0.062 0.015
Covariance BWS
Linear Variance BWS 0∗ —a
Model Fit
AIC 1750.68 1626.88 1656.91
BIC 1753.18 1635.38 1660.24
No. of Parameters 11 11 11
Note. AIC = Akaike Information Criterion; BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion; BWS = between
student/student level (level 2); BWT = between teacher/teacher level (level 3); WS = within stu-
dent/measurement occasion level (level 1).
a
Not estimable.
∗
2.52−19 .
apply in an equivalent manner, with the appropri- that may include smaller class size, more oppor-
ate respective numbers, for both STAMP speaking tunities to use the second language, and higher
and STAMP reading scores. motivation among those students who chose to
continue language studies beyond the minimum
language requirement. Given the indicated rela-
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
tionship between goal setting and achievement,
Analysis of the data reveals a consistent increase future research to further clarify development in
over time in the mean goal, action plan, and re- both areas, as well as the interrelationship, should
flection scores of high school Spanish learners. be considered. For example, a similar study with a
This trend held true for all levels except for the control group would provide increased clarity and
progression from third- to fourth-year Spanish for strengthen our understanding of the relationship
action plan writing and goal setting. With the dis- between goal setting and achievement. Although
aggregation of the data at the third and fourth causation certainly cannot be claimed with the sta-
year, this consistency continued; however, a lim- tistical analyses conducted in this study, the con-
ited sample size is a limitation at these levels. The sistent growth in goal, action plan, and reflection
greatest improvement in goal setting occurred be- scores may serve as a rationale for future consid-
tween the second and third levels of Spanish. This eration of the factors involved in increasing skill
can be explained in part by the attrition of those proficiency (practice, educational level, maturity,
students who discontinued their Spanish studies, etc.).
as this sufficed to meet the language require- One might hypothesize that these lesser mean
ment for entry into college. This increase in score scores (goal-setting process) for the third and
could also be attributed to a myriad of reasons fourth levels are due to a training effect on the
Aleidine J. Moeller, Janine M. Theiler, and Chaorong Wu 163
part of teachers (Schärer, 2004). Knowledge of the need to focus on the goal-setting process for
the goal-setting process and its implementation the potential benefit of all learners, whether they
has evolved during this study, and trainings for be high achievers, low achievers, beginning stu-
teacher participants were adjusted accordingly. dents, or advanced students (at the secondary
Students who accumulated 4 consecutive years of level). Kohonen (2002) found that especially
participation began the study with teachers who lower secondary and elementary students are ac-
received their training when the least was known customed to relying on the teacher for planning
about the goal-setting process. Their students, in and guiding them through the learning process
turn, likely received a less detailed and structured and found little value in taking on the responsi-
plan of guidance when compared to those who bility themselves. Lacking the key metacognitive
began participating in the third or fourth year of skills that are stimulated by the ELP/LinguaFolio,
the study. Each iteration of the study brought new many students struggled to make the connec-
understanding about goal setting, which was im- tion between reflection and self-assessment ex-
mediately implemented in the training sessions ercises and their language learning. This fact
with participating teachers. An additional factor emphasizes that the goal-setting process is espe-
contributing to this may be the sense of commu- cially important for these learners to achieve aca-
nity that was established among the participants demic success and can serve as a powerful inter-
via Blackboard, face-to-face meetings, and addi- vention. LinguaFolio, as evidenced in this study,
tional training at regional and state conferences can serve as an effective tool for promoting self-
and seminars. This provided a forum for teach- regulation in learners through structured goal
ers to share insights, experiences, and successes setting.
(Schärer, 2004). The HLM teacher-level goal-setting score refers
Correlational analyses revealed a statistically sig- to a combined mean goal score of all learners
nificant positive relationship between each com- for one particular teacher, and the HLM analy-
ponent of the goal-setting process and each com- sis does not reveal a significant relationship for
ponent of the STAMP assessment (p < .01). These teacher-level scores and student STAMP scores.
correlations reveal a positive relationship between An increase in the teacher-level goal-setting score
proficiency and the writing of goals, action plans, does not relate to an increase in STAMP scores
and reflections—a learner more practiced and of individual students (writing, p = .557; read-
skilled at goal setting relates positively to higher ing, p = .06; speaking, p = .078). The action
language achievement in Spanish. Thus, a student plan scores at the teacher level do not reveal a
with a higher goal, action plan, or reflection score relationship with the STAMP scores of individual
will likely also be a student who achieves a higher students (reading, p = .799; writing, p = .198;
STAMP proficiency score in reading, writing, or speaking, p = .493). This finding gains more
speaking. Conversely, a student who has lower goal meaning when one recalls that the previously
setting, action plan, or reflection scores will likely mentioned HLM statistically indicated a relation-
be a student who achieves a lower STAMP profi- ship between student growth in the goal-setting
ciency score. Although there is a strong positive process and proficiency (p < .001). The pres-
relationship between goal setting and language ence of student-level-related growth combined
achievement, causality can only be established with the lack of relationship between teacher
through experimental research using a control goal/action plan writing growth and student
group. STAMP growth emphasizes the student-specific
Although the correlation results might be con- nature of the effects of goal writing and lan-
sidered a defense of “better goal writers equal guage proficiency. In other words, according to
better users of language,” the HLM elucidates the HLM findings, growth in student proficiency
the nature of the relationship of the growth that is related to growth in student goal writing inde-
occurs with both goal setting and proficiency. pendent of the teacher. Factors that may influ-
The HLM analysis revealed a statistically signifi- ence these results include teacher-independent
cant relationship at the student level when con- variables that impact student achievement, such
sidering both goal writing and action plan writ- as motivation, the goal-setting process itself,
ing in relation to STAMP proficiency (p < .001). and the meaningfulness of the curriculum. Re-
The relationship of this growth is independent searchers have emphasized that simply setting
of level of language learning or achievement one’s own goals does not necessarily improve
level—growth in the ability to write goals or ac- achievement (Schunk, 2003), that a number of
tion plans is related to growth in Spanish lan- important factors contribute to improved perfor-
guage proficiency. This general finding elucidates mance, such as high-quality goals (Dörnyei, 2001;
164 The Modern Language Journal 96 (2012)
West & Thorn, 2001), setting one’s own goals variance in student proficiency according to the
(Azevedo et al., 2002; Griffee & Templi, 1997), HLM empty model. These combined results call
teacher- and student-agreed-upon learner goals for future investigation into the nature of teacher
(Boekaerts, 2002), and the learning environment effect in the foreign language classroom, such
(Turner, 1995). as the teacher’s role in the goal-setting process.
One might also attribute the lack of rela- Qualitative studies are recommended that inves-
tionship between teacher-level scores and stu- tigate both general classroom teacher effect as
dent STAMP scores to the very prescribed goal- well as the teacher effect component on stu-
setting procedures used uniformly by the par- dent goal-setting processes. How the teacher in-
ticipating teachers (see Appendix A). Such a troduces the goal-setting process, the degree of
prescribed set of procedures may have reduced peer and teacher feedback of the goals, the con-
the variations between teacher means. Allowing sistent and regular review of goal setting during
for variability in goal-setting procedures may re- the course of the semester, the degree of partici-
veal teacher effect for goal writing and student pation of the student in the identification of the
achievement. learning goals, the personalization of the learn-
This study does not imply that teachers do not ing goals, and the use of SMART goals to evaluate
influence the language acquisition process. When the quality of student goals may play a significant
turning to the empty model (Table 4), there is role in the degree of student achievement. Finally,
indication of variability for student achievement this study has introduced LinguaFolio as a poten-
that is related to differences among teachers. The tial intervention for the integration of the goal-
empty model is the basic level of development setting process into the language learning class-
of the more complex HLM model, and as such, it room. Given the indicated relationship between
does not take into account multiple variables. The the goal-setting process and student achievement,
focus in the empty model is growth in proficiency the need for such interventions is underscored.
independent of other variables. Because there Future investigations may further elucidate the
is a statistically indicated relationship between optimal manner in which students might navigate
teacher and student growth in proficiency in the this goal-setting process to increase motivation,
empty model, we can assume that the teacher con- promote autonomous learning, and enhance aca-
tribution to variability in student proficiency is re- demic achievement.
lated to factors independent of the goal-setting
process. This assumption stresses the fact that
the teacher relationship to student achievement
(STAMP scores) may involve other variables. Vari-
NOTE
ables such as classroom climate, use of the second
language, grouping, learner-centered instruction, HLM uses all available information within a
teacher language proficiency, and teacher and data set, and meaningful variance is not lost, as
student personality have correlated with higher would be the case with listwise elimination of cases
achievement. Classroom observations, teacher in- in techniques such as analysis of variance and re-
terviews, and lesson plan reviews would provide gression. HLM presents another data-related ad-
valuable data regarding what is happening inside vantage within the context of this study when con-
sidering that it enables researchers to analyze rela-
those classrooms in which students consistently
tionships in growth between or among variables.
outperform other classes of students. Due to the emphasis on growth, students may en-
This study provides insight into relationships ter at any level of learning, and their data will
that exist between the goal-setting process and be of value for this study. In this study, HLM re-
student achievement in the Spanish language lates growth in goal-writing ability with growth in
classroom. Researchers found a significant rela- proficiency, and the growth rate is considered to
tionship between a student’s ability to set goals be constant. Because of this underlying assump-
and language achievement in the Spanish lan- tion of constant growth rate, the comparison of
guage classroom. A growth relationship was also growth is unrelated to level of language learning.
revealed, with growth in goal-setting ability sig- Thus, students may enter the study at any level
and may be included in this longitudinal analysis
nificantly relating to growth in proficiency. This
of growth relationships. For these reasons, HLM
growth relationship proved to be significant at the is the strongest and most appropriate statistical
individual student level, independent of the class- analysis procedure for this study, as researchers
room teacher. Interestingly, whereas the teacher desire to most accurately model the true growth-
did not account for variance in the growth re- related relationships between outcomes and pre-
lationship, the teacher did account for general dictors within the nested educational context of
Aleidine J. Moeller, Janine M. Theiler, and Chaorong Wu 165
Spanish learning experience within students Motivational and performance consequences.
within teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76 , 1038–1050.
Cross, P. C., & Steadman, M. H. (1996). Classroom re-
search: Implementing the scholarship of teaching . San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dickinson, L. (1987). Self-instruction in language learn-
REFERENCES ing . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Doran, G. T. (1981). There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write
Ames, C. (1992a). Achievement goals and classroom mo- managements’ goals and objectives. Management
tivational climate. In J. Meece & D. Schunk (Eds.), Review, 70, 35–36.
Students’ perceptions in the classroom (pp. 327–348). Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the lan-
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. guage classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge Language
Ames, C. (1992b). Classrooms: Goals, structures and stu- Teaching Library.
dent motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting
84, 261–271. learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.
Ames, C., & Archer. J. (1988). Achievement goals in the Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive
classroom: Students’ learning strategies and moti- approach to motivation and personality. Psycholog-
vation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, ical Review, 95, 256–273.
80, 260–267. Edwins, S. D. (1995). Increasing reflective writing and
Avant Assessment. (2010). About STAMP (Standards- goal-setting skills on high ability sixth grade math-
based Measurement of Proficiency) Web-based Test of ematics students. Retrieved from ERIC database
Foreign Language Assessment. Retrieved from (ED392065).
http://avantassessment.com/products/about_ Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach
stamp.html to motivation and achievement. Journal of Person-
Azevedo, R., Ragan, S., Cromley, J., & Pritchett, S. ality and Social Psychology, 54, 5–12.
(2002). Do different goal-setting conditions facilitate Good, T. L., Grouws, D. A., Mason, D. A., Slavings, R. L.,
students’ ability to regulate their learning of complex & Cramer, K. (1990). An observational study of
science topics with RiverWeb? Retrieved from ERIC small-group mathematics instruction in elemen-
database (ED482509). tary schools. American Educational Research Jour-
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of con- nal , 27 , 755–782.
trol. New York: Freeman. Griffee, D. T., & Templi, S. A. (1997). Goal setting affects
Bellanca, J., & Fogarty, R. (1991). Blueprints for thinking task performance. Retrieved from ERIC database
in the cooperative classroom (2nd ed.). Palatine, IL: (ED413782).
IR/Skylight Publishing. Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learn-
Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in ing . Oxford: Pergamon.
language learning . London: Longman. Jagacinski, C. M., & Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Conceptions
Bishop, J. (2003). Empowering students to succeed. of ability and related affects in task involvement
NCSC News. Retrieved from http://www.ncsc.info and ego involvement. Journal of Educational Psy-
Boekaerts, M. (2002). Motivation to learn. Educational chology, 76 , 909–919.
Practice Series. Geneva: International Bureau of Jagacinski, C. M., & Nicholls, J. G. (1987). Competence
Education. and affect in task involvement and ego involve-
Brophy, J. E. (1983). Fostering student learning and ment: The impact of social comparison informa-
motivation in the elementary school classroom. In tion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79 , 107–
S. Paris, G. Olson, & H. Stevenson (Eds.), Learn- 114.
ing and motivation in the classroom (pp. 283–305). Kohonen, V. (2002). The European language portfolio:
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. From portfolio assessment to portfolio-oriented
Candy, P. (1988). On the attainment of subject-matter language learning. In V. Kohonen & P. Kaikko-
autonomy. In D. Boud (Ed.), Developing student au- nen (Eds.), Quo vadis, foreign language education?
tonomy in learning (2nd ed., pp. 59–76). London: (pp. 77–95). Tampere, Finland: Department of
Kogan Page. Teacher Education in Tampere University.
Council of Europe. (2010). The European Language Port- Little, D., & Perclová, R. (2001). European Language
folio. Retreived from www.coe.int/portfolio Portfolio: A guide for teachers and teacher trainers.
Covington, M. V. (1984). The motive for self worth. In R. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/T/DG4/
Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in Portfolio/
education: Student motivation (Vol. 1, pp. 77–113). Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal
San Diego, CA: Academic Press. setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Covington, M. V., & Berry, R. G. (1976). Self-worth Prentice Hall.
and school learning . New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., &
Winston. Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task
Covington, M. V., & Omelich, C. L. (1984). Task- performance: 1967–1980. Psychological Bulletin,
oriented versus competitive learning structures: 90, 125–152.
166 The Modern Language Journal 96 (2012)
Marshall, H. H. (1988). In pursuit of learning-oriented Pennycook, A. (1997). English and capital: Some
classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 85– thoughts. The Language Teacher , 21, 55–57.
98. Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. education: Theory, research, and applications. Engle-
(2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research- wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
based strategies for increasing student achievement. Schärer, R. (2004). A European Language Portfolio from pi-
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and loting to implementation (2001–2004). Consolidated
Curriculum Development. report—final version. Strasbourg: Language Policy
Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Division, Council of Europe.
Students’ goal orientations and cognitive engage- Scharle, A., & Szabó, A. (2000). Learner autonomy: A
ment in classroom activities. Journal of Educational guide to developing learner responsibility. Cambridge:
Psychology, 80, 514–523. Cambridge University Press.
Mento, A. J., Steel, R. P., & Karren, R. J. (1987). A meta- Schunk, D. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writ-
analytic study of the effects of goal setting on task ing: Influence of modeling, goal setting, and self-
performance: 1966–1984. Organizational Behavior evaluation. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19 , 159–
and Human Decision Processes, 39 , 52–83. 172.
Miller, A. F., & Cunningham, J. A. (1981). How to avoid Stipek, D. J., & Kowalski, P. S. (1989). Learned help-
costly job mismatches. Management Review, 70, 29– lessness in task-orienting versus performance-
31. orienting testing conditions. Journal of Educational
Moriarity, J., Pavelonis, K., Pellouchoud, D., & Wilson, Psychology, 81, 384–391.
J. (2001). Increasing student motivation through the Tubbs, M. (1986). Goal setting: A meta-analytic exami-
use of instructional strategies. Retrieved from ERIC nation of the empirical evidence. Journal of Applied
database (ED455962). Psychology, 71, 474–483.
NCSSFL (National Council of Supervisors for Turner, J. (1995). Influence of classroom contexts on
Languages). (2010). LinguaFolio. Retrieved children’s motivation for literacy. Reading Research
from http://www.ncssfl.org/links/index.php? Quarterly, 30, 410–441.
linguafolio Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some class-
Nicholls, J. G. (1979). Quality and equality in intellectual room experiences. Journal of Educational Psychol-
development: The role of motivation in education. ogy, 71, 3–25.
American Psychologist, 34, 1071–1084. Wentzel, K. R. (1987). Social, emotional, and cognitive fac-
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Conceptions of ability and tors related to adolescent classroom goals and academic
achievement motivation. In R. Ames & C. Ames achievement in adolescence: A developmental systems
(Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 1, approach to the study of achievement motivation. (Un-
pp. 39–73). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. published doctoral dissertation). Stanford Univer-
Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and demo- sity, Stanford, CA.
cratic education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer- Wentzel, K. R. (1991). Social competence at school: Re-
sity Press. lationship of social responsibility and academic
Nicholls, J. G., Cheung, P. C., Lauer, J., & Patashnick, M. achievement. Review of Educational Research, 61,
(1989). Individual differences in academic moti- 1–24.
vation: Perceived ability, goals, beliefs, and values. West, R. L., & Thorn, R. M. (2001). Goal setting, self-
Learning and Individual Differences, 1, 63–84. efficacy, and memory performance in older and
Nicholls, J. G., Patashnick, M., & Nolen, S. B. (1985). younger adults. Experimental Aging Research, 27 ,
Adolescents’ theories of education. Journal of Ed- 41–65.
ucational Psychology, 77 , 683–692. Yang, N. (1998). Exploring a new role for teachers: Pro-
Oxford, R., & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning moting learner autonomy. System, 26 , 127–135.
motivation: Expanding the theoretical framework. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A
Modern Language Journal , 78, 12–28. social-cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaers, P. R.
Paris, S. J., & Newman, R. S. (1990). Developmental Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-
aspects of self-regulated learning. Educational Psy- regulation: Theory, research, and applications (pp.
chologist, 27 , 87–102. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Aleidine J. Moeller, Janine M. Theiler, and Chaorong Wu 167
APPENDIX A
LinguaFolio Cycle of Implementation
6. Write 1. Review
reflection Self-
based on Assessment of
evidence and Competency
goals Level Rubric
5. Review 2. Write
goals. Choose personal goals
work to LinguaFolio Cycle of based on
represent goal Implementation chapter
attainment. content.
APPENDIX B
LinguaFolio Goal-Setting Process Rubric
Goals Goals use authentic Goals do not Goals do not use Goals are not
language and are necessarily use authentic language authentic, there is
tied to context. authentic language. and/or are not no focus on growth,
Goals are growth Goals are somewhat growth oriented, not and they are too
oriented, theme contextualized, theme based, broad, broad, unrealistic,
based, measurable, growth oriented, unfocused, vague or and/or generic. The
specific, realistic, and connected to a too specific, too student is unable to
challenging, theme. Goals are challenging, or not articulate a goal.
personally relevant, measurable, at all challenging.
and time bound (“by somewhat specific,
the end of this realistic, and
chapter . . .”). somewhat
challenging.
Action Plan Breaks down goal Action plan present, Action plan present, No action plan for
into a specific action but not specific, or but specific steps for improving
plan with manage- additional steps success are not achievement.
able tasks. It is clear would be necessary articulated,
how each goal will be in order to make the extremely vague
achieved. goal manageable. (i.e., “study,”
“listen”).
Evidence & Goals are reflected Goals are reflected Goals are reflected Goals are not
Reflection upon and are upon and are upon, but they are reflected upon.
consistently revised sometimes revised not revised when
when deemed when deemed deemed
inappropriate by the inappropriate. inappropriate.
student.
Each sample of work Most samples of Few samples of work No samples of work
in the dossier work in the dossier in the dossier in the dossier
includes a rationale include a rationale include a rationale include a rationale
for why it was chosen for why they were for why they were for why they were
and how it relates to chosen and how they chosen and/or how chosen and/or how
the goals that were relate to the goals they relate to the they relate to the
set. The rationale is that were set. The goals that were set. goals that were set.
very clearly stated, rationale is briefly The rationale, if
labeled, and dated. stated and may or stated, is vague and
may not be labeled lacking labels and
and dated. dates.
Aleidine J. Moeller, Janine M. Theiler, and Chaorong Wu 169
APPENDIX C
Regression Equations for the Final Model of STAMP