Disentangling achievement orientation and goal setting: Effects on self-regulatory processes.

Abstract

The Heckhausen and Kuhl (1985) goal typology provided the conceptual foundation for this research, which examined the independent and integrated effects of achievement orientation and goal setting approaches on trainees' self-regulatory activity. Using a complex computer-based simulation, the authors examined the effects of three training design factors cutting across these two theoretical domains -goal frame, goal content, and goal proximity -on the nature, focus, and quality of the self-regulatory activities of 524 trainees. Results revealed that all three factors had a significant influence on self-regulation, with goal content exhibiting the greatest influence. In line with expectations, congruent learning frame and content relative to congruent performance frame and content was beneficial for trainees' self-regulatory activity, incongruent combinations of goal frame and content were better than congruent performance frames and content, and effects for the incongruent combinations cutting across the domains were asymmetrical. Theoretical extensions for further disentangling these distinct domains and training design implications are discussed. Achievement Orientation and Goal Setting AbstractThe Heckhausen and Kuhl (1985) goal typology provided the conceptual foundation for this research, which examined the independent and integrated effects of achievement orientation and goal setting approaches on trainees' self-regulatory activity. Using a complex computerbased simulation, the authors examined the effects of three training design factors cutting across these two theoretical domains -goal frame, goal content, and goal proximity -on the nature, focus, and quality of the self-regulatory activities of 524 trainees. Results revealed that all three factors had a significant influence on self-regulation, with goal content exhibiting the greatest influence. In line with expectations, congruent learning frame and content relative to congruent performance frame and content was beneficial for trainees' self-regulatory activity, incongruent combinations of goal frame and content were better than congruent performance frames and content, and effects for the incongruent combinations cutting across the domains were asymmetrical. Theoretical extensions for further disentangling these distinct domains and training design implications are discussed. Achievement Orientation and Goal Setting 3Disentangling Achievement Orientation and Goal Setting: Effects on Self-Regulatory ProcessesOver the last decade or so, training research has examined a variety of interventions designed to influence the nature, focus, and quality of self-regulatory processes which, in turn, have been shown to have beneficial effects on trainee motivation, learning, and performance.As a result, this type of research has advanced understanding with respect to how to design effective interventions for training complex skills (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001). One limitation of this work, however, is that it has drawn upon related but distinctly differ...

Goal setting in teams: The impact of learning and performance goals on process and performance

“…One burgeoning area of research in goal setting at the individual level is the distinction between learning and performance goals (e.g., Cianci, Klein, & Seijts, 2010;Kozlowski & Bell, 2006;Seijts, Latham, Tasa, & Latham, 2004). In response to findings that specific, difficult goals harm learning and skill acquisition, individual-level research suggests that learning goals, rather than performance goals, should be set when tasks are complex or a person lacks the knowledge to perform the task effectively (Seijts et al, 2004).…”

“…The first dimension, goal content, focuses team members on the results being sought (Latham, 2007;Locke & Latham, 1990). Attention can be shifted to different results based on whether the goal has a learning or a performance focus, and this shift in focus cues different motivations and behavioral responses from team members (DeShon & Gillespie, 2005;Dweck, 1986;Kozlowski & Bell, 2006;Seijts et al, Goal Setting in Teams 5 2004). The second dimension, goal specificity, reduces the interpretive leeway of the exact meaning of the goal (Locke & Latham, 1990), and thus can also alter behavioral responses.…”

Team Learning: A Theoretical Integration and Review

“…For example, teams tend to be utilized when tasks are complex, a condition that makes team learning central and salient. At the individual level, there has been a stream of research demonstrating that learning goals (i.e., goals that target specific learning objectives) are superior to performance goals (i.e., difficult and specific performance levels) when individuals have to acquire complex skills (e.g., Kozlowski & Bell, 2006;Seijts, Latham, Tasa, & Latham, 2004;Winters & Latham, 1996). Efforts to examine these contingencies on the effectiveness of goals at the team level have been relatively rare (e.g., Weingart, 1992).…”

“…As Button, Mathieu, and Zajac (1996, p. 28) state, "dispositional goal orientation will predispose individuals to adopt particular response patterns across situations, but situational characteristics may cause them to adopt a different or less acute response pattern for a particular situation." Situational factors, such as goals or task framing, can induce different types of goal orientation, and these situational inducements often interact with individuals' dispositional goal orientation to influence individuals' learning processes and outcomes Kozlowski & Bell, 2006).…”

On the Relationship between Self-regulated Learning Components and L2 Vocabulary Knowledge and Reading Comprehension

“…The study emphasized the importance of developing students" use of self-regulatory strategies as part of instruction to help students achieve better performances. Kozlowski and Bell (2006) examined the integrated and independent effects of goal setting and attainment orientation views on learners" self-regulatory activity. The participants of this study were 524 students.…”