Item 987654321/14471

(1)

March 2012

The Effect of Specific Goals on EFL Students’ Self-efficacy

and Performance of Vocabulary Learning

Shan-mao Chang

∗

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was two-fold. First, it investigated the relative effects of the specific goal and the vague goal on EFL students’ self-efficacy and performance of vocabulary learning. Second, it aimed to obtain in-depth understandings of the teacher’s and the students’ perceptions about the goal setting in the study. One hundred and two junior high school students and their English teacher participated in the study. The students were divided into two different groups, i.e., specific goal group (experimental group) and vague goal group (control group). Both groups were instructed 25 new vocabulary words by the same EFL teacher. Prior to the instruction, all participants were informed that a test on the 25 vocabulary words would be given three days after the instruction. Meanwhile, each student in the experimental group was assigned an individual goal regarding the test by the teacher. The students of the control group were told to “do your best” and “work hard” for the test as their goal.

Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used. Student self-efficacy questionnaire responses and the vocabulary test scores of these two groups were compared at the end of the experiment. The t-test results showed that the experimental group outperformed the control goal group in both the vocabulary test and self-efficacy scores, which suggested that setting specific goals was more effective in enhancing students' self-efficacy and performance. In addition to the quantitative analysis, qualitative techniques such as student journals and the teacher interview were employed to obtain in-depth understandings about the students’ and teacher’s perceptions of the goal setting in this study. It was found that students and the teacher both perceived setting specific goals as an effective way to enhance learning motivation and self-efficacy.

Keywords: specific goals, self-efficiancy of vocabulary learning, performance of

vocabulary learning

∗_{Associate Professor, Department of English, National Changhua University of Edcation.}

(2)

第五期，頁53-74 二○一二年三月

設定明確目標對英語為外語學生單字學習的自我效能

和成就表現之影響

張善貿

∗

摘要

本研究的目的之一在於探討明確目標和模糊目標，對於英語為外語國中學生學習單字方面，自我效能和成就表現方面所產生的影響；另一目的為深入了解師生對於本次目標設定的想法。本研究樣本為一百零二位國中學生和一位英語教師。學生依照研究目的分為二組：明確目標組（實驗組）和模糊目標組（對照組）。二組學生皆接受相同單字課程教學，由該教師進行教學，學習廿五個單字。教學開始時，教師告知所有學生，單字課程結束後三天，將實施以該廿五個單字為範圍的測驗；同時，教師針對實驗組每位學生根據其能力分別賦予一個明確目標，而對照組學生則以「盡全力」和「努力用功」準備考試作為該目標。本研究採用量性和質性研究法。在量性方面：學生的自我效能問卷反應和單字學習成就表現，在實驗結束後進行比較，統計結果顯示，實驗組在自我效能和成就表現優於對照組學生；此乃意味適切目標能有效提升學生學習動機、自我效能，和成就表現。在質性方面：本研究使用學生學習日誌以及和教師訪談等技巧，以求深入了解師生對於本次目標設定的想法。結果發現，師生雙方都肯定適切的目標設定能有效提升學習動機、成就和自我效能。關鍵字：明確目標、單字學習自我效能、單字學習成就表現 ∗_{國立彰化師範大學英語系副教授。}

(3)

1. Introduction

Second language learning motivation (L2 motivation) has traditionally been researched through Lambert and Gardner’s sociopsychological perspective of second language acquisition. Gardner’s (1985) socio-educational model of second language learning has grounded its theory in the second language context rather than the foreign language context. In the second language context, language is usually mastered through the formal instructions in the classroom accompanied by sufficient exposures to the language outside the classroom. Besides, the sociopsychological approach primarily stresses on the role of the social variables such as attitudes and identity. In recent years, researchers have questioned Gardner’s sociopsychological approach to L2 motivation in terms of its validity in other contexts than the North American setting, especially in the foreign language learning (FLL) context. Moreover, researchers have argued that Garnder’s model of L2 motivation is too restricted and therefore called for alternative approaches to L2 motivation from other disciplines (e.g. Chang, 2005a, 2005b; Chang, 2006; Chang, Huang, & Wu, 2010; Huang, Chang, & Huang, 2007; Dörnyei, 1994; Oxford & Shearin, 1994; Tremblay & Gardner, 1995), especially those approaches that are more promising in generating classroom-specific motivational strategies (Dörnyei, 1994, 1998, 2001, 2003; Dörnyei & Csizér, 1998; Oxford & Shearin, 1994; Song, 2002). Oxford and Shearin (1994) further pointed out that L2 teachers should help students feel self-efficacious by setting challenging but proximal goals for them.

Previous studies have pointed out that vocabulary plays a crucial role in language learning (e.g. Penno et al., 2002; Saville-Troike, 1984). Vocabulary growth is closely linked to school progress and competence in reading (Penno et al., 2002). Vocabulary ability and memorization of students have often been emphasized by the EFL teachers in Taiwan. Vocabulary ability is usually tested in quizzes and examinations in the EFL classroom (Chang, Huang, & Wu, 2010).

The purpose of the present study was two-folded. First, it investigated how goal setting for EFL students would influence their self-efficacy and performance in vocabulary learning. The study would like to compare the relative effects of the two types of goals on student self-efficacy and performance, i.e., the specific goal and the vague goal. Second, the present study aimed to obtain in-depth understandings of the teacher’s and the students’ perceptions about the goal setting.

2. Literature Review

Goal setting has been extensively researched and practiced in different fields to boost humane motivation and performance. Goals provide specific directions, motivate them to expend more efforts, and push them to persist longer in learning. Setting

(4)

appropriate goals makes success more feasible to students, which foster the feeling of self-efficacy. Enhanced self-efficacy, in turn, helps sustain student motivation and improve consequent academic achievement. Researchers have concluded that goal setting is a useful motivational technique that enhances people’s intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, and academic performance (e.g., Latham & Locke, 1991, 2006; Locke & Latham, 1990, 2002; Pajares, 1996; Schunk, 1996a; Schunk & Swartz, 1993).

Locke (1996) indicated that goals affect the direction of action, the degree of effort exerted, and the persistence of action over time. Besides, goals are also viewed as immediate regulators of human action (see Wang, 2004). The effects of goals on behavior depend on the three crucial properties: specificity, proximity, and difficulty (Bandura, 1997; Schunk, 1990, 1994, 1996b, 1996c, 2001, 2003). Specific goals can direct people’s action (Locke & Latham, 1990), focus people’s attention on relevant task features and the useful strategies (Latham & Locke, 1991; Oxford & Shearin, 1994; Tremblay & Gardner, 1995), specify the amount of effort needed to attain the goals (Schunk, 1990, 1996c), and promote self-efficacy (Schunk, 1990, 1996c). Proximal goals can provide immediate incentives and guides for action (Bandura, 1982), help people to evaluate progress immediately, and strengthen people’s confidence. In addition, proximal goals are especially influential with children, who have relatively short time frames of reference and are not fully capable of representing distant outcomes in thought (Schunk, 1996c). Difficult goals can create higher motivation (Schunk, 1990), greater effort expenditure, and better perseverance (Latham & Locke, 1991; Schunk, 1991).

Self-efficacy is defined as “people’s judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances” (Bandura, 1986, p. 391). Self-efficacy for learning may be a good predictor of actual learning because it taps students’ beliefs about their learning capabilities, which influences academic motivation and learning (Schunk, 1996a). Research findings showed that self-efficacy can affect people’s choice behavior, effort expenditure and persistence, thought patterns, and emotional reactions (Bandura, 1982, 1986, 1989a, 1989b, 1997; Pajares, 1996; Schunk, 1991). Students with high self-efficacy would choose what are more challenging to undertake, expend more effort to attain standards, persist longer when encountering difficulties, attribute failure to internal causes, and take negative discrepancies between standards and performance as motivating ones. In addition, such beliefs affect the level of motivation as well as achievement. After overcoming challenges, people with a strong sense of efficacy generally would tend to undertake further challenges. Successful experiences in overcoming further challenges would enhance people’s motivation to keep working.

Researchers proposed that there exists a reciprocal relationship between students’ goal setting and their perceived efficacy (Bandura, 1986; Pajares, 1996). Self-efficacy influences people’s choice of goal difficulty, the degree of commitment to goals, the

(5)

response to negative feedback or failure in the process of goal attainment, effort expenditure and persistence during the process of goal attainment, and the choice of task strategies to attain goals (Maddux, 1995; Pajares, 1996; Zimmerman et al., 1992). On the other hand, goals serve as standards for people to verify a growing sense of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982; see Schunk, 1985). Goal attainment could further validate self-efficacy by giving individuals a sense of task mastery and bolster efficacy (Earley & Lituchy, 1991; see Schunk, 1985, 2003). Success raises self-efficacy, and failure lowers it. However, once students develop a strong sense of efficacy, a failure may not have a significant impact.

Although goal setting has been extensively researched and practiced as an effective motivational technique in different fields such as academics (e.g., Page-Voth & Graham, 1999; Schunk, 1985, 1994, 1996b, 2001; Schunk & Ertmer, 1999; Schunk & Swartz, 1993), athletics (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Locke & Latham, 1985, 1990), and business (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Locke & Latham, 1990), only a few studies have been conducted to explore its effect in the EFL context. Chang (2005a, 2005b) and Huang et al. (2007) in their experimental studies found that Taiwanese junior high school EFL students with specific goals outperformed their counterparts with vague goals or no goals in terms of vocabulary learning. In Japan, Haynes (2011) conducted a study among 34 university EFL students and found that the students perceived goal setting as a motivating tool that helped them see their progress and focus on specific language areas. Srichanyachon (2010) surveyed 370 EFL students at a university in Thailand and found that students who set high goals tended to have less learning problems than did those who set low goals.

3. Method

3.1 Participants

The participants were 102 2nd year students (gender mixed) and their EFL teacher from a private junior high school located in central Taiwan. The students’ demographic information is summarized in Table 1. The participants were divided into two groups for the purpose of the present study: the specific goal group (experimental group) and vague goal group (control group). To determine if ability differences exist between these two groups, students’ scores of the English test in the simulated exams were collected and analyzed by performing t-test prior to the experiment. The t-test results indicated that no significant difference existed between the two classes at the outset of the experiment, t (101) = .956, p> .05 (see Table 2). In Taiwan, simulated examinations are highly valued by students, schools and parents. Simulated exams are usually administered to junior high school students in order to familiarize them with the format and atmosphere of the entrance exams of senior high schools. The results of the simulated exams are often

(6)

regarded as predictions of students’ future performance of the entrance exams. Therefore, these participants generally prepare for these exams seriously.

Table 1

Demographic Information of the Participants

Experimental Group Control Group

Male 31 17

Female 18 36

Subtotal 49 53

Grand Total 102

Table 2

T-test Results of the Scores of the English Simulated Examinations for the Control Group and the Experimental Group

Group N Mean SD t

Control Group 53 76.41 9.20 Experimental Group 49 74.10 14.60

.956

Note: Total score= 100

3.2 Instruments

This study used both quantitative and qualitative methods. The quantitative data were collected through instruments such as the vocabulary test and self-efficacy strength questionnaire while the qualitative data were collected through student learning journals, the goal-setting response questionnaire and teacher’s interview.

3.2.1 The Vocabulary Test

Prior to the experiment, a vocabulary test was administered to all participants as the pretest (see Appendix A). There were totally 25 items on the test. Each item tested one word and counted 4 points and the total score was 100 points. The t-test results showed that no significant group differences existed for the pretest scores, t (101) = -.43, p> .05 (see Table 3). As can be seen in Table 3, the low mean scores (1.43 and 2.04) indicated that the all the 25 words were new to the participants. The same test was administered to the participants after the instruction on these vocabulary words as the posttest.

(7)

Table 3

T-test Results of the Vocabulary Pretest for the Control Group and the Experimental Group

Group N Mean SD t

-.43

Note: Total score = 100

3.2.2 Self-efficacy Strength Questionnaire

Although Bandura (1982) suggested self-efficacy be measured through level, strength and generality, Schunk (1996a) pointed out that Bandura’s two-step efficacy judgment procedure made children confused. Schunk (1996a) indicated that self-efficacy strength alone could be an adequate measure for self-efficacy, which has been supported by many studies (e.g. Schunk & Swartz, 1993; Schunk, 1996a; Wang, 2004). Therefore, the present study used self-efficacy strength to measure students’ perceived self-efficacy of the English vocabulary.

Self-efficacy strength questionnaire in this study was adopted from Wang (2004) (see Appendix D). Wang’s (2004) questionnaire was designed to gain information about the strength of the students’ confidence in English vocabulary test. In Wang (2004), seven items were included in the questionnaire and each item indicated the number of words that the student thought they could answer correctly. However, since self-efficacy means individual’s self-confidence in the specific task, the seven items were expanded to twenty-five items according to the total number of the vocabulary words tested in the current experiment. Each item estimated students’ strength of confidence in answering correctly the specific question in the vocabulary test. The students assessed the strength of their confidence on a 100-point scale, ranging in 10-unit interval from 0 (“completely unconfident”) to 100 (“completely confident”). Self-efficacy strength was then calculated by summing up all of the scores across items and then the sum was divided by the total number of items.

The students filled out the questionnaire immediately after they finished the vocabulary pretest and posttests. To investigate whether group differences existed in self-efficacy toward the vocabulary pretest at the onset of the experiment, the t-test results showed no significant differences between the two groups, t (101) = .69, p>.05 (see Table 4). As can be seen in Table 4, it was reasonable that the mean scores for both groups were very low (.56 and .38) since students had not learned the new words when they took the pretest. The same questionnaire was administered to the participants immediately after they finished the vocabulary posttest.

(8)

Table 4

T-test Results of the Perceived Self-Efficacy Toward the Vocabulary Pretest for the Control Group and the Experimental Group

Group N Mean SD t

Control Group 53 .56 1.18 Experimental Group 49 .38 1.15

.69

Note: Total score = 100

3.2.3 The Student Learning Journals

In order to obtain in-depth understandings of the students’ and teacher’s perceptions about the goal setting in this study, several qualitative techniques were used to collect data among the experimental group and the teacher, i.e., the student learning journals, the goal-setting response questionnaire and the teacher interview.

The participants wrote the learning journal during the experiment. They were asked to write down their answers to the following two questions: 1) Does the assigned goal influence your motivation to learn English and why? and 2) Does the assigned goal influence your English learning in terms of preparation for the test, effort expenditure and persistence? (see Appendix C).

3.2.4 The Goal-setting Response Questionnaire

Previous studies suggested that the goal-setting response questionnaire needs to consist of the following four aspects: 1) the degree of usefulness of goal setting, 2) the students’ intention to use goal setting in the future, 3) intention to recommend goal setting to other pupils and 4) their suggestions for making goal setting more successful (Lee & Gavine, 2003). In the present study, the goal-setting questionnaire adopted from Lee and Gavin (2003) was administered to the experimental group at the end of the study (see Appendix E).

3.2.5 The Teacher Interview

Prior to the interview, five main questions were generated as the guiding questions (see Appendix F). The interview, which lasted approximately thirty minutes, was conducted in the teacher’s native language, Mandarin Chinese. It was digitally recorded and then transcribed. In the interview, the teacher was asked to provide comments on the goal setting in terms of practicability, advantages and disadvantages as well as difficulties. The teacher was also asked if she would use goal setting in the future. Moreover, the teacher was expected to give some suggestions for implementation of goal setting in the future.

(9)

3. 3 Setting Goals for Students

Griffee and Templin (1997) argued that learning 25 new words can be difficult but possible goal for students. Both groups were instructed 25 new vocabulary words by the same EFL teacher. Prior to the instruction, all participants were informed that a test on the 25 vocabulary words would be given three days after the instruction. Meanwhile, each student in the experimental group was assigned a specific goal by the teacher based on her judgment about the student’s ability. The goals for the specific goal group were showed in Appendix B. The lowest goal was to score 20 points and the highest goal was to score 96 points for the vocabulary posttest. On the other hand, the teacher told the control group students to “do your best” and “work hard” for the test as their goal just as she usual had told students in class.

4. Results

PASW (SPSS) for Windows Version 19.0 was used to analyze the quantitative data. Qualitative data such as the learning journal, the goal-setting response questionnaire and the teacher interview transcription were analyzed to obtain the major themes.

4.1 Vocabulary and Self-efficacy Posttests

The goal attainments of the experimental group are calculated and summarized (see Appendix B). It was found that 38 out of 49 students (77.6%) attained their assigned goals. In addition, the t-test results showed that the experimental group performed significantly better than the control group in both the vocabulary posttest, t (101) = -4.47**, p<.01 (Table 5) and self-efficacy toward the vocabulary posttest, t (101) = -2.88**, p<.01 (Table 6).

Table 5

T-test Results of the Vocabulary Posttest for the Control Group and the Experimental Group

Group N Mean SD t

-4.47**

(10)

Table 6

T-test Results of the Perceived Self-Efficacy Toward the Posttest for the Control Group and the Experimental Group

Group N Mean SD T

-2.88**

Note: Total score = 100 **p<.01.

4.2 Results of the Students Learning Journals

4.2.1 Goals are challenging but motivating to students.

Students’ writing in the learning journals generally showed that the assigned goals were challenging but motivating to them. In the research about goal setting, goal difficulty is taken as an important factor that motivates people to attain their goals. As long as individuals have enough abilities, the more challenging goals are, the more motivated they would become. In addition, goal attainment could provide students with a sense of achievement, which further enhances motivation. As one student stated, “…. if I attain my goal, I would have a sense of achievement.”

4.2.2 Goal made students strive to perform well.

Researchers of the expectancy-value theory argued that individuals’ choice, persistence, and performance can be explained by their beliefs about how well they would do on the activity (see Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). This was found in several students’ writing. As one student mentioned, “If I can’t attain my goal, I will be very sad…I wanted to surpass my standard (the assigned goal).”

Locke (1996) indicated that goals influenced motivation in that they affected the direction of action, the persistence of action over time, and the degree of effort exerted. Students in this study generally agree that goals specified how well they should perform on the test and therefore influenced their effort. As a student mentioned, “[The goal] makes me know how many words I must memorize”. As for students’ persistence in working, another student stated that “I kept working [on memorizing the new words] although I was quite sleepy”. The assigned goals also pushed them to spend more time studying English and to make best use of their time. Several students mentioned that “I spent more time reading English” and “I made use of the time when I was on the school bus.”

4.3 Results of the Student Goal-setting Response Questionnaire 4.3.1 Goals are useful to students.

(11)

Some students mentioned that with specific goals they performed better than they did before. One student stated that “My grade was higher than before.” Besides, several students said that goal setting had enhanced their motivation to study. As one student indicated in the questionnaire, “The goal enhanced my motivation to study.” In addition, previous studies have revealed that goal setting increases effort expenditure and provides directions. This was found among students’ questionnaires. For example, as one student mentioned, “[Goal setting] made me work harder.” Another one stated he worked harder “because it [goal setting] provided a specific direction.”

4.3.2 Goals were expected to help students’ future learning.

When asked whether they will set specific learning goals in the future and whether they will recommend goal setting to other students, most of them stated that they would use it in the future (32 out of 49) and they would recommend that to others (35 out of 49). Students particularly pointed out that setting the specific goal had contributed to their learning. As one student claimed, “[Goal setting] was useful!” In general, students indicated that goal setting greatly influenced their effort expenditure. As another student stated, “With specific goals, I will study harder for the tests in the future.”

4.3.3 The teacher should pay attention to individual needs and differences.

When asked to comment on the goal setting implementation, some students suggested that the teacher should give rewards upon goal attainment. This suggests that extrinsic incentives may play a role in the practice of goal setting. One student stated “providing rewards” would make goal setting even more successful. In addition, some students indicated that goals should be assigned based on individual abilities. For example, one student answered, “[The goals] should be set according to one’s own ability.” This comment suggests that goal difficulty should be considered when teachers assign goals to students of different abilities.

4.4 Results of the Teacher Interview 4.4.1 Goal setting is a practical technique.

The teacher expressed she was greatly impressed by the effect of the specific goal. Even for those “low-achieving” students, she believed it is a practical motivating technique. As she mentioned, “It was practicable because [many students] are passive. Assigning goals to students may make them work harder.” When asked about what impressed her most in the goal-setting, the teacher indicated that the effects of goal setting on a low-achievement student impressed her a lot.

4.4.2 Appropriate goals were hard to be decided.

(12)

student. As she said, “when assigning goals, we need to analyze students’ performances of previous tests and worry whether each assigned goal truly reflect the student’s ability. If we assign goals based on the easy tests, … the assigned goal will not reflect students’ abilities.”

4.4.3 Use incentives to strengthen goal commitment.

In line with the students’ opinion, the teacher also suggested that rewards upon goal attainment should be provided. She further indicated that the rewards must be valued by students. As she stated, “To some students, rewards are important, because if they like the rewards, they would work harder.”

5. Discussion

It was found in the study that specific goals were more effective in improving the

junior high school EFL students’ self-efficacy and performance of vocabulary learning. The findings are consistent with previous studies. For example, in a study examining the causal role of students’ self-efficacy beliefs and academic goals in self-motivated academic attainment, Zimmerman at al. (1992) found that goals played a key role in students’ attainment of grades in school. It was found these goals committed the students to specific grade achievements. In another study, Miller and Kelley (1994) taught students to divide homework assignment into small goals and found that specific goals could increase homework accuracy. Furthermore, in a study on goal setting effect on computer learning, Schunk and Ertmer (1999) found that providing students with a specific goal helped them focus on the learning process, which motivated them to use effective self-regulatory activities.

In the present study, the goal assigned to students of the experimental group can be considered to consist of the three important properties, i.e., specificity, proximity and difficulty. Specific, proximal and difficult goals have been argued to benefit students better than the goals which are easy, vague, or distal (Bandura, 1997; Schunk, 1996b, 1996c, 2003; Schunk & Swartz, 1993). Tests and quizzes are powerful proximal goals in the years-long language learning in the current Taiwanese educational context. Schunk (1996c) indicated that specific goals boost performance by greater specification of the amount of effort required for success and the self-satisfaction anticipated and they also promote self-efficacy because progress is easy to gauge. The goals in the present study were considered proximal since the posttest was given three days after the vocabulary instruction. Bandura (1982) proposed that motivation is best summoned and sustained by adopting attainable proximal goals in that proximal goals provide immediate incentives and guides for action.

(13)

attainment suggest that the goals were moderately difficult for students. This was considered one reason for making students work harder on the test. This finding is in line with Locke and Latham (1990, 2002), arguing that the moderately difficult goals would induce people to expend more effort and perform better.

In sum, students in the present study generally indicated that specific goals enhanced their effort expenditure and persistence in learning. This is consistent with previous research in which the influences of goal setting on effort expenditure and persistence were emphasized (Locke & Latham, 1990; Oxford & Shearin, 1994; Tremblay & Gardner, 1995; Zimmerman et al., 1992). For example, Locke and Latham (1990) claimed that goals affect effort intensity. It was assumed that under high demand conditions, people use more of their total capacity than under low ones. Therefore, as previous studies revealed, challenging goals would lead people to working longer at a task than easy goals.

6. Conclusion

Based on the findings, we conclude that setting specific goals would be useful in enhancing students’ performance, self-efficacy and motivation in EFL learning. In addition, from the students’ and teacher’s responses, rewards upon goal attainment were considered as one important factor that commits students to their goals. As a result, teachers who intend to effectively implement goal setting in the classroom may consider providing appropriate rewards for students. Furthermore, as the teacher and the students suggested in this study, teachers should also take students’ individual differences into consideration when assigning goals to them. Teachers should consider the students’ needs, ability, and personality.

It is noted that little research of goal setting has been conducted in the EFL classroom. The value of this study could be both theoretical and practical. Theoretically, this study contributes to our knowledge of how goal setting relates to language learning. The findings of the present study provide empirical evidence for the effects of goal setting in the EFL context. Practically, the present study proposes setting specific goal can serve as an effective technique to enhance students’ perceived self-efficacy and motivation, which in turn benefit performance. Teachers may assign students specific, moderately challenging and proximal goals in the English class.

Although the present study has shed light on the effectiveness of goal setting in the FLL context, two suggestions were proposed for the future studies. First, students were assigned goals solely based on their English teacher’s perceptions and on their own performances on previous English tests. Further studies may involve students themselves in the decision-making process of goal setting. (see Earley & Kanfer, 1985; Schunk, 1985). Second, this study focused on the influences of goal setting on students’ English

(14)

vocabulary learning. Further research may involve other aspects of language learning such as the four skills and grammatical rules.

REFERENCES

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist,

37, 122-147.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought & action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1989a). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist,

44, 1175-1184.

Bandura, A. (1989b). Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-efficacy.

Developmental Psychology, 25, 729-735.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.

Chang, S. F. (2005a). The effect of goal setting on EFL students’ self-efficacy and motivation. Journal of Humanities, 4. 282-304.

Chang, S. F. (2005b). The effect of goal setting on EFL students’ self-efficacy and

motivation. Paper presented at ILA Oceania Conference 2005. Auckland, New

Zealand.

Chang, S. F. (2006). College Students’ Motivation for Learning English as a Foreign Language. Taipei: Crane.

Chang, S. F., Huang, Y. T. & Wu, H. C. (2010). Setting Goals for Low Achievers: The

Design and Effects. In The Conference Proceedings of The Fourth CLSInternational Conference: Processes and Process-Orientation in Foreign Language Teaching and Learning, (pp. 137-174). Singapore: National University of Singapore.

Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. The

Modern Language Journal, 78, 273-284.

Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language

Teaching, 31, 117-135.

Dörnyei, Z. (2001). New themes and approaches in second language motivation research.

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 43-59.

Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning: Advances in theory, research, and application. In Z. Dörnyei (Ed.), Attitudes,

orientations, and motivations in language (pp. 3-32). Blackwell: Oxford.

Dörnyei, Z., & Csizér, K. (1998). Ten commandments for motivating language learners: Results of an empirical study. Language Teaching Research, 2, 203-339.

Earley, P. C., & Kanfer, R. (1985). The influence of component participation and role models on goal acceptance, goal satisfaction, and performance. Organizational

(15)

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 378-390.

Earley, P. C., & Lituchy, T. R. (1991). Delineating goal and efficacy effects: A test of three models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 81-98.

Erez, M, & Arad, R. (1986). Participative goal-setting: Social, motivational, and cognitive factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 591-597.

Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of

attitudes and motivation. Landon: Edward Aronld.

Gardner, R. C. (2001). Language learning motivation: The students, the teacher, and the

researcher. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 464695).

Griffee, D. T., & Templin, S. A. (1997). Goal-setting affects task performance. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 413782).

Haynes, L. (2011). Goal setting in EFL: Is it really useful? Studies in Humanities and

Cultures, 15, 83-92.

Huang, Y. T., Chang, S. F. & Huang, S. C. (2007). Implementing goals setting in the EFL

classroom. Paper presented at the annual convention of Teachers of English to

Speakers of Other Languages, Seattle, Washington.

Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Self-regulation through goal setting.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 212-247.

Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Enhancing the benefits and overcoming the pitfalls of goal setting. Organizational Dynamics, 35, 332-340.

Latham, G. P., Steele, T. P., & Saari, L. M. (1982). The effects of participation and goal difficulty on performance. Personnel Psychology, 35, 677-686.

Lee, D., & Gavine, D. (2003). Goal-setting and self-assessment in Year 7 students.

Educational Research, 45, 49-59.

Locke, E. A. (1996). Motivation through conscious goal setting. Applied & Preventive

Psychology, 5, 117-124.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35 odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705-717.

Maddux, J. E. (1995). Self-efficacy theory: An introduction. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.),

Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application (pp.

3-33). New York: Plenum Press.

Miller, D. L., & Kelley, M. L. (1994). The use of goal setting and contingency contracting for improving children’s homework performance. Journal of Applied

Behavior Analysis, 27, 73-84.

Oxford, R., & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: Expanding the theoretical framework. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 12-28.

(16)

Oxford (Ed.), Language learning motivation: Pathways to the new century (pp. 121-144). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Page-Voth, V., & Graham, S. (1999). Effects of goal setting and strategy use on the writing performance and self-efficacy of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 230-240.

Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational

Research, 66, 543-578.

Penno, J. F., Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Moore, D. W. (2002). Vocabulary acquisition from teacher explanation and repeated listening to stories: Do they overcome the Matthew effect? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 23-33.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.

Saville-Troike, M. (1984). What really matters in second language learning for academic achievement. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 199-129.

Schunk, D. H. (1985). Participation in goal setting: Effects on self-efficacy and sills of learning disable children. The Journal of Special Education, 19, 307-317.

Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacy during self-regulated learning.

Educational Psychologist, 25, 71-86.

Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist,

26, 207-231.

Schunk, D. H. (1994). Goal and self evaluative influences during children’s

mathematical skill acquisition. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED

372932).

Schunk, D. H. (1996a). Self-efficacy for learning and performance. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 394663).

Schunk, D. H. (1996b). Self-evaluation and self-regulated learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 403233).

Schunk, D. H. (1996c). Learning theories: An educational perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-regulation through goal setting. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 462671).

Schunk, D. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal setting, and self-evaluation. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 159-172.

Schunk, D. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (1998). Self-evaluation and self-regulated computer

learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 422275).

Schunk, D. H., & Swartz, C. W. (1993). Goals and progress feedback: Effects on

self-efficacy and writing achievement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No.

ED 359216).

(17)

implications. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 476264).

Srichanyachon, N. (2010). Goal Setting for Learning English Language of EFL Students. (Eric Document Reproduction Services No. ED512562).

Tremblay, P. F., & Gardner, R. G. (1995). Expanding the motivation construct in language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 505-520.

Wang, C. S (2004). The Effects of Goal Setting on Junior High School Students’ Self-Efficacy and English Learning. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Changhua Normal University of Education, Changhua.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation.

Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81.

Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting.

American Educational Research Journal, 29, 663-676.

Appendix A: The Vocabulary Test

1. They plan to start a c n against smoking.他們計畫發起禁菸運動。 2. In this c e, you should be careful.在這個情勢下，你必須小心。 3. I hope I can win the e n. 我希望我可以贏得這場選舉。

4. Mary went to work d e her illness.儘管生病，瑪莉還是去工作。 5. The United States has a f l government.美國有聯邦政府。 6. Jack is g l for Kim’s help. 傑克對金的幫忙很感謝。 7. A school is an i n. 學校是公共機構。

8. Parents m n their children at school.父母供養還在學的小孩。

9. We have o ved your behavior for a long time.我們已經觀察你的行為很久了。

10. My mother does not p t me to leave my room.我媽媽不允許我離開房間。

11. Parents often make s es for their children.父母常爲子女犧牲。 12. This painting is t l of her early works.這幅畫是她早期的代表作。 13. You need to tell me your u e decision today.你今天必須告訴我你最後的決定。

14. I need v s ideas. 我需要各種的主意。 15. The show is very w d. 這場表演很不可思議。

16. Many countries r ed the new government.許多國家承認新政府。 17. They s e for love.他們爲愛奮鬥。

18. I have an o y to go to the university.我有機會上大學。

19. Mother always shows p r love for my little brother.媽媽總是對我弟弟表現特殊關懷。

(18)

21. You need to j y your behavior.你必須爲你的行為辯護。 22. Air is e l to live.空氣對生存是必要的。

23. The shooting is for d e. 開槍是爲了防衛。 24. Your a e is not good enough.你的態度不夠好。

25. You need to a e the task at five o’clock.你必須在五點完成這個任務。

Appendix B: Summary of the Goal Attainment of the Experimental Group

Student Gender Pretest Goal Posttest S1 M 0 56 68* S2 M 0 80 56 S3 M 0 96 96* S4 M 0 88 96* S5 M 0 88 56 S6 M 52 96 84 S7 M 0 56 60* S8 M 0 72 100* S9 M 0 84 52 S10 M 0 20 20* S11 M 0 92 96* S12 M 0 28 4 S13 M 0 96 100* S14 M 0 88 96* S15 M 0 72 100* S16 M 0 92 84 S17 M 0 84 88* S18 M 0 84 92* S19 M 0 92 96* S20 M 0 76 40 S21 M 0 84 92* S22 M 0 80 96* S23 M 40 92 96* S24 M 0 96 96* S25 M 0 72 40 S26 M 0 84 92* S27 M 0 88 92* S28 M 4 80 76 S29 M 0 92 100* S30 M 0 80 88*

(19)

S32 M 0 80 72 S34 F 0 88 100* S35 F 0 88 96* S36 F 0 92 96* S37 F 0 76 48 S38 F 0 88 100* S39 F 0 72 100* S40 F 0 88 100* S41 F 0 84 100* S43 F 0 96 100* S44 F 4 84 96* S45 F 0 96 100* S46 F 0 92 100* S47 F 0 96 100* S48 F 0 84 96* S49 F 0 68 100* S50 F 0 84 84* S51 F 0 88 100* S54 M 0 76 88* Total 2.04 81.80 84.24

Note: * The posttest scores indicate that goals were achieved by the student.

Appendix C: Student Learning Journal

1. 目標會提高你學習英文的動機嗎？為什麼？

2. 目標對你的英語學習是否有影響？請就以下三方面陳述。

(1) 準備方向： (2) 努力程度： (3) 唸書時間：

(20)

Appendix D: Self-efficacy Strength Questionnaire 請告訴我們，你覺得這次考試，你有信心答對多少個單字？信心強度指數 (0-100) 完百全分沒百信有心信心 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 這次考試，我可以答對 1 個單字這次考試，我可以答對 2 個單字這次考試，我可以答對 3 個單字這次考試，我可以答對 4 個單字這次考試，我可以答對 5 個單字這次考試，我可以答對 6 個單字這次考試，我可以答對 7 個單字這次考試，我可以答對 8 個單字這次考試，我可以答對 9 個單字

(21)

這次考試，我可以答對 10 個單字這次考試，我可以答對 11 個單字這次考試，我可以答對 12 個單字這次考試，我可以答對 13 個單字這次考試，我可以答對 14 個單字這次考試，我可以答對 15 個單字這次考試，我可以答對 16 個單字這次考試，我可以答對 17 個單字這次考試，我可以答對 18 個單字這次考試，我可以答對 19 個單字這次考試，我可以答對 20 個單字這次考試，我可以答對 21 個單字

(22)

這次考試，我可以答對 22 個單字這次考試，我可以答對 23 個單字這次考試，我可以答對 24 個單字這次考試，我可以答對全部 25 個單字

Appendix E: Goal-setting Response Questionnaire

1. 整個活動中，目標設定對你的英語學習幫助有多大，且幫助了你什麼：目標設定讓我 2. 你會再使用目標設定的方式學習嗎？為什麼？ 3. 你認為什麼方式會讓目標設定更成功？ 4 你願不願意將這個方法介紹給其他同學願意原因不願意原因

Appendix F: Teacher Interview Guide

1. 整體而言，您對目標設定在課堂上的實用性評價為何？請陳述理由。 2. 您覺得目標設定是否有其優缺點，如果有，請問優缺點各為何？ 3. 您覺得在整個過程中是否有遇到困難？如果有，困難點在哪？ 4. 請問您對目標設定是否有建議以作為改進的依據？