Assessing Students' Study Strategies and Achievement Goals

108
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment December 2012, Vol. 12(1)
Assessing Students Study Strategies and Achievement Goals Carlo Magno
De La Salle University, Manila

Abstract The present study examined the relationship between achievement goal orientation (mastery-approach, performance-approach, mastery-avoidance, and performanceavoidance) and the learning and study strategies (information processing, selecting main ideas, test strategies, anxiety, attitude, motivation, concentration, self-testing, study aids, and time management). Data were gathered from 260 college students taking basic college mathematic classes by indicating their goals in the Achievement Goal Questionnaire (Elliot & McGregor, 2001) and their strategies used in learning and studying using the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI, Weinstein & Palmer, 2002). A correlational analysis between the subscales of the achievement goal orientation and learning and study strategies was conducted to determine the constructs convergent and divergent validity. Key results showed that (a) there is a weak to moderate relation within the subscales of achievement goals, (b) there is a moderately strong relation within the subscales of learning and study strategies (c) mastery-avoidance goals was unexpectedly positively associated with all learning and study strategies (d) performance-approach goals showed more positive association compared to mastery-approach, and (e) selecting main ideas and time management were both positive consequences of the different achievement goals. Path analysis from achievement goal factors to each study strategy showed significant parameter estimates. Convergence was attained from achievement goals to each study strategy.
Keywords: Learning strategies, Achievement goals, Mathematics learning

Introduction College students have their own distinctive goal orientations when performing certain tasks. Students goal orientations direct their effort and performance, serving as a form of motivation to accomplish an academic task successfully. If students focus on mastery goals in general, they are more concerned on developing their competencies through task engagement. But if students focus on performance goals in general, they concentrate on demonstrating their competence relative to others. Also, these general orientations can be further understood as an approach-oriented or avoidant-oriented type. An approach-oriented type of goal orientation whether its mastery or performance in nature is task engaging. On the other hand, an avoidant- oriented is task- avoiding regardless if they are mastery or performance. These goal-orientations toward an academic task make an individual use effectively or ineffectively different learning and study strategies (Somuncuoglu & Yildrim, 1999). Such strategies include how learners process, examine, and construct information in ways that they are able to prepare and demonstrate acquisition of knowledge in different areas (Smith, 1995). These learning strategies include attribution of attitudes, interests, motivation, and discipline in achieving academic success. Learning strategies also makes students self-regulate and control their whole learning
2012 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734
109
process through time management, concentration or attention to the time and task at hand, and self-assessment on how they meet their learning demand and making use of their study supports (Weinstein & Palmer, 2002). If there are differences in the focus on goals, there must be a pattern on how they correlate with learning strategies. For example, of students goal on a task is developing competency (mastery approach), the learning strategies are carried out effectively. Studies on educational psychology have looked between the predicted relationship between achievement goals and learning and study strategies show that through the effective use of achievement goals they are able to comment and assert a great deal of use of higher order learning and study strategies (McMillan, 1987; Pascarella, 1989; Somuncuoglu &Yildirim, 1999; Elliot, McGregor & Gable, 1999; Pintrich, 2000; Walker, 2003). However, the direction of the relationship between specific achievement goals and learning strategies needs to be studied especially in domain-specific courses such as mathematics. Somuncouglu and Yildrim (1999) thought that goal orientations and study strategies have an important effect if it is based on a specific context or subject. There is a need to study the relationship of achievement goals and learning and study strategies because adapting to a specific or to a multiple achievement goal will have an effect on a students study strategies whether the adoption of goals depicts a positive or a negative effect on a student. The study is focused on subject specific context which is the math subject. For the past three decades, various studies have shown that there were distinctive characteristics of mastery goal orientation and the performance goal orientation (Was, 2006; Zweig & Webster. 2004; Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999). Recently, there are several researches that provide evidences for further distinction of achievement goals. Students adapting a mastery approach on their goals enhance the use of higher order learning strategies and this results in better outcome such as performance (Was, 2006). The present study sought to test the relationship of specific achievement goals (mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance, performance-approach, and performanceavoidance) to different learning and study strategies (information processing, selecting main ideas, test strategies, anxiety, attitude, motivation, concentration, self-testing, study aids and time management) in the context of mathematics learning. This link between the two constructs when established provides information on the convergent and divergent validity of the two scales. Achievement Goal Orientation Ames (1992) defined goal orientation or achievement goals as an integrated pattern of beliefs, attributions, and affect that produces the intentions of behavior and is represented by different ways of approaching, engaging in, and responding to achievement type of activities. The theories about goal orientation or achievement goals were mostly western and focused on the purpose of students achievement behavior and propose that achievement goals have performance standards which students consider whenever they evaluate their own performance in school. Theories on achievement goals were first dichotomous and presumes that student achievement goals can be separated into mastery goals, which involves task- mastery orientation, intrinsic motivation, and internal regulation and performance goals, which involves ego-social orientation, extrinsic motivation and
110
external regulation (Nicholls, 1984; Ames & Archer, 1988, Meece, Hoyle, & Blumenfeld, 1988, Nolen & Haladyna, 1990; cited in Somuncuoglu & Yildirim, 1999; Ames, 1992; Cho 1992; cited in Somuncuoglu & Yildirim, 1999; Harackiewicz & Elliot, 1993; Meece and Holt, 1993; Maehr, 1994; cited in Was, 2006). The theory also focuses on a great deal of research in education due to the impact that achievement goals were hypothesized to have a great effect on student performance and achievement (Was, 2006). Studies on the two different achievement goal orientations were described further by approach-avoidance distinction. The trichotomous framework of achievement goals was conceptualized and divided performance goals into performance- approach and performance avoidance, depending on whether the goal is directed at exceeding normative competence or avoiding normative incompetence (Elliot, 1999; cited in Bernardo 2008). Elliot and McGregor (2001) presented a new achievement goal framework which was both a revision of the mastery- performance dichotomy and an extension of the trichotomous framework. This framework was called the 2 x 2 achievement goal framework that incorporates the application of approach-avoidance distinction to mastery goals and so creating mastery-approach and mastery-avoidance goals (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). The first dimension of the 2 x 2 framework has the mastery and performance orientation that defines success, while the second dimension consists of approach and avoidant orientations that defines valence (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). When a student recognizes success as a use of learning and improving skills they are the mastery type of students. Success is called self- referenced, which individuals usually looks into themselves and compare his/her performance to previous performances. Performance goals type of students recognizes their success by being better than another person or by achieving the things that others cannot achieve. Success is called norm-referenced. Its when they compare with another person (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). When it comes to valence, students either view their goal in an approach or avoidant fashion. When a student gets an approach style, students aimed to be dominant in success. When students avoid failure these types of students have the avoidant style. In the present study, the researchers will test the 2x2 achievement goals namely performance-approach, performance-avoidance, mastery-approach, and mastery-avoidance because researchers wanted to find out more positive association of these achievement goals to positive learning outcomes such as learning and study strategies. On western studies, mastery-approach goals, performance-approach goals, performance-avoidance goals and mastery-avoidance goals were uniform in their relationship to achievement and to different of learning strategies across different level of students (high school or college, students) different learning environments (traditional or online classrooms), and different learning domains (English or Mathematics) (Rosenhaultz & Simpson, 1984; Meece, Hoyle, & Blumenfeld, 1988; Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999; Somuncuoglu & Yildrim, 1999; Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Midgley, et al., 2002; Greene et al, 2004; Wolters, 2004; Linnenbrink, 2005; Duperyat & Marine, 2005; Watson, 2007). Mastery-approach goals were good indicators of cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies, motivation, cognitive engagement (self- regulation) in learning, deep processing strategies like elaboration and organization, higher persistence and effort during exam performance, and low levels avoidance and procrastination. While performance-approach goals were indicators of less use of cognitive strategies, lower level motivation and cognitive engagement compared to mastery goals, lower level of deeper learning compared to
111
mastery goals, high surface processing strategies, lower persistence and effort compared to mastery goals. In performance-avoidance goals, it showed indicators of lowest level of use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies, lowest level of motivation, lower levels of surface learning strategies compared to performance-approach goals, task disengagement, disorganization, state test anxiety, worry and emotionality but were bad indicators of deeper learning strategies, persistence and effort in exam performance. For mastery-avoidance goals, it showed that it was a positive indicator of disorganization, state test anxiety, worry, emotionality, procrastination, but still with a higher level of use cognitive and metacognitive strategies and deep learning strategies, and task engagement. When achievement goals were tested among Asian students such as Hong Kong Chinese, Singaporeans, and Filipinos, both mastery and performance-approach goals were positively related to achievement (Bernardo, 2005; Chan, Lai, Leung, & Moore, 2005; Ee & Moor, 2004; cited in Bernardo, 2008) and use of deeper strategies (Bernardo, 2004; Ng, 2000; cited in Bernardo, 2008). These studies suggest that there is a positive association between mastery and performance-approach goals (Bernardo, 2003; Salili, Chiu, & Lai, 2001; Tao & Hong, 2000; cited in Bernardo, 2008). The correlation was explained through the belief of students that both meeting the personal expectations and expectations of others could gain social approval which is influenced by culture for Chinese cultures since that culture values achievement as a moral obligation of fulfilling personal and social standards (Somuncuoglu &Yildirim, 1999; Tao, & Hong 2000; Chan, & Lai, 2006). These outcomes could also be explained by Yu and Yangs (1994) assertion that in Asian societies, individual achievement goals must conform to in-group values so among Asian students their academic motivation are socially oriented. The study of Yip and Chung (2005) tested LASSI and showed that there is a significant difference between the study habits of Hong Kong college students with high and with low academic achievement in their matriculation but those strategies used during matriculation may not work completely when they are in the university (Yip & Chung, 2005). In addition, Yip (2007) found out that motivation and attitude where the two major differences between the use of different learning and study strategies of low and high achieving Hong Kong university students (Yip, 2007). In general, Asian students employ the use of both mastery-approach and performance-approach goals related to school performance and achievement through expression of their social-oriented achievement motivation. Filipino students share their knowledge and practices in learning because of their concept of shared identity and humanity (Enriquez, 1992; cited in Bernardo, Zhang & Callueng, 2002) but there were no huge data in particular available in saying that Filipino students achievement motivation are individually or socially oriented or both (Bernardo, 2008). Some relevant studies showed that compared to American students who inhibit their achievement motivations when doing classroom tasks, Filipino students were more communicating about their achievement motivations to their peers which eventually makes them self- improving in their classroom performance (Church & Katigbak, 1992). They develop high performance standards and high intrinsic value of the task when they affiliate their motivation and enjoyment of to others but this implies differently to western uniform conceptions about the different achievement goals (Church & Katigbak, 1992). Also, Filipino students draw cognitive resources from their peers when they are focused on doing single or multiple tasks (Bernardo, Zhang, & Callueng, 2002). Other studies on Filipino students show that their parents possessed strong influences on how they make educational
112
decisions even if the orientation was social or individual (Gastardo-Conaco, Jimenez, & Billedo, 2003; Lamug, 1989; cited in Bernardo, 2008). However, there have been no studies that documented the influence of teachers to their students in terms of making educational decisions also (Bernardo, 2008). Since research documents that Asian students use both mastery and performance-approach goals in their achievement because of the influence of their socially oriented achievement motivation, Bernardo (2008) explored these conditions to Filipino university students and supported the fact that there are parent-oriented motivations in social- oriented achievement motivations of students and found also that teacher-oriented was also influential to Filipino students socially-oriented achievement motivation. For individual oriented motivations, Filipino students exhibit performance standards and personal goal choice (Bernardo, 2008). On the other hand, each of these achievement motivations was not related to achievement (Bernardo, 2008). Only achievement goals specifically mastery goals, and performance-approach goals were related to achievement and also to some achievement motivations namely personal performance standards and parent-oriented achievement motivations (Bernardo, 2008). Learning and Study Strategies Learning strategies is defined globally as mental processes where learners have chances to intentionally employ to help themselves in learning and understanding something new that they regard as fundamentals of their self-regulation and autonomous learning (Watson, 2006). Also, learning strategies involve specific actions that is said to be like a trick because it helps learners in certain circumstances to make them recall things better and make tasks easier pleasant, more efficient, and more manageable (Oxford, 1990). In addition, it is translated into the form of behaviors or thoughts that is gained during learning period that helps influence the learner's encoding development (Weinstein & Mayer, 1986). Therefore, learning and study strategies in general can be understand as the behavioral or cognitive manifestation of techniques, philosophies, or rules which aids the attainment, manipulation, assimilation, storage, and retrieval of information through different situations and settings (Masters, Mori, Mori, 1993; Nisbet & Shucksmith, 1986). One of the widely used instruments is the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI) that determines students learning behavior as well as studying behaviors (Weinstein, Palmer, & Schulte, 1987; cited in Braten & Olaussen, 1998). LASSI is a diagnostic measure which is composed of an 80- item assessment of self- awareness of students about their use of learning and study strategies particularly on the domain of skill, will and selfregulation type of learning strategies. The skill component is composed of information processing, selecting main ideas, and test strategies. These three subscales of the skill component of LASSI examines students learning strategies, skills, thoughts, processes related to identifying, acquiring and constructing meaning for important new information, ideas, and procedures, and how they prepare for and demonstrate their new knowledge on tests or other evaluative procedures (Weinstein & Palmer, 2002, p. 5). Next, the will component of learning and study strategies inventory is composed of anxiety, attitude and motivation. These three subscales of the will component of LASSI measures the degree to which students worry about their academic performance, their receptivity to learning new information, their attitudes and interest in college, their diligence, self-discipline, and willingness to exert the effort necessary to successfully complete academic requirements
113
(Weinstein & Palmer, 2002, p. 5). The last component of the learning and study strategies inventory which is self-regulation is composed of 4 subscales namely concentration, selftesting, study aids, and time management. These four subscales of the self-regulation component of LASSI measures how student manage, or self-regulate and control, the whole learning process through using their time effectively, focusing their attention and maintaining their concentration over time, checking to see if they have met the learning demands for class, an assignment or a test, and using study support such as review sessions, tutors, or special features of a text book (Weinstein, & Palmer, 2002, p. 5). The study of Flowers (2003) retested the reliability of LASSI to find the extent to which subscale scores obtained from the first edition of the LASSI was still stable and provided consistent measures of students knowledge and use of different study skills. Another study by Sizoo, Jerome, and Wilfred (2005) tested the learning strategies of adult careers and vocational students by using LASSI and it provided a detailed evaluation of their learning strengths and weaknesses of the students (Sizoo, Jerrome, & Wilfred, 2005). There were different studies that tested LASSI in terms of race to achievement. The study by Olaussen and Braten (1998) tested learning and study strategies by correlate both low and high perceived ability, age, gender and its interaction to all of the variables of LASSI from Norwegian college student samples and eventually compared it to American students who established the measure. Their study evidenced that only motivation subscale from LASSI has a low norm score for Norwegian students compared to American students, that students with high perceived ability reported more use of learning strategies, that female students use more learning strategies, that older college student reported higher level of use of learning strategies yet the interaction between the variables did not produce a positive result (Braten & Olaussen, 1998). Both Braten and Olaussen (2000) explored the reason why Norwegian college students do result an evident low score on the motivation subscale and found out in their follow-up interview after administering LASSI to new respondents they discovered contextual differences of value Norwegian College students show to motivation subscale. They found out that students who have higher scores in the motivation subscale showed wholeheartedness in valuing the activities and reflected selfdisciplined and duty- oriented motivation as described and presented by the items which are contrary to those students who obtained lower scores in the motivation subscale (Braten & Olaussen, 2000). The study of Rhody (1993) characterized the study behavior and attitudes of high school freshman at a country-suburban school in Oregon using LASSI to academic performance. After conducting intercorrelation, 8 out of the 10 scales: attitude, motivation, time management, anxiety, concentration, selecting main ideas, self- testing, and test strategies were significant to academic achievement. There were also studies that tested the LASSI subscales based on classroom context i.e. medicine class to achievement or performance. The study by Smith (1995) identified critical thinking abilities, learning and study strategies associated to academic achievement in associate degree nursing students. There was a significant difference between learning and study strategies and academic achievement of various levels of college students anxiety, test strategies, selecting main ideas, concentration, and motivation scales. Furthermore, nursing college students with superior academic achievement demonstrated more effective use of test strategies compared with those below average academic achievement who reported experiencing more anxiety related to learning and testing. Another study by Clow (1998) evidenced that there was a strong correlation of motivation,
114
time management, anxiety, concentration, test taking, selecting main ideas and attitude to academic achievement on distance education for medical practitioners. Heard (2002) tested the relationship of the subscales of LASSI to student persistence on 169 student applicants who voluntarily enrolled community college students through a longitudinal study. The 125 participants who graduated after two years showed an increase on their motivation and anxiety to their persistence. Primus (2003) study on the learning and study strategies of associate degree nursing students showed that anxiety, attitude, motivation, and test strategies have small negative associations with achievement. While students with high levels for selecting main ideas, high level of test strategies, and low level of anxiety showed high achievement. The study of Proctor, Prevatt, Adams, Hurst, and Petscher (2006) showed that when learning and study strategies was compared with academically struggling and normal achieving college students, the skill components such as information processing, selecting main ideas and test strategies of those academically struggling college students were significantly lower with the use of the learning and study strategies inventory (LASSI). Hovelands study (2006) investigated the relationship between LASSI and academic achievement by testing it also to associate degree nursing college students. The LASSI subscales that obtained lowest subscale scores in self- testing, time management, and study aids. Those with the highest subscale scores were information processing, motivation and selecting main ideas. When LASSI was correlated to academic achievement, only motivation and test strategies were significant. Achievement Goals and Learning Strategies in Mathematic Learning The present study analyzed the achievement goals and learning strategy within the context of a mathematics course so that students will focus on this area since it was suggested that students perceptions of goal orientations and learning strategies were more meaningful if their responses were based on a specific course (Somuncuoglu & Yildirim, 1999). Several studies have shown that different learning strategies, approaches, and beliefs are related in the context of college mathematics. The study of Gutman (2006) examined the effects of students and parents goal orientation and their perceived goal structures o n grades and self-efficacy during their transition in their high school in the context of their mathematics class. The study resulted that students who encourage themselves in using mastery goals showed more positive changes in their grades and self- efficacy compared to college students who encouraged performance goals. In terms of high school transition, students who encourage more mastery than performance goals also showed the same positive change (Gutman, 2006). It was also found that for African-American students, mastery goals are more influential in determining achievement and motivation in mathematics most especially in their high school transition (Gutman, 2006). Leigh, Husman, Duggan, and Pennington (2007) tested the relationship between learning strategies, motivation, self- efficacy and student achievement in the context of an online developmental mathematics course. The findings revealed that motivation, concentration, information processing and self-testing along with self-efficacy significantly predicted academic achievement. Furthermore, students motivation and learning strategies are sensitive to contextspecific differences and are dependent on the goal orientations and background characteristics (Pintrich & Garcia, 1991; cited in Somuncuoglu & Yildirim, 1999). Gutman
115
(2006) gave more a detailed explanation that mastery goals might be significant in determining achievement and motivation in mathematics during the transition in high school. If students internal structures such as their achievement goals are explored, its facilitative effects on how they approach mathematical equations or problems will be identified because it is not limited only how they are skilled in mathematics but also on how they define their competence and view their striving. The Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI) when administered to Filipino students revealed mixed results of deep or surface approach and obtained higher or lower levels of student approach to learning (Bernardo, 2003). Based on a proposed model by Pintrich (1995, 2004), self-regulated learning showed that when academic courses are articulated with cognitive, motivational, behavioral, and contextual features, students were able to learn how to regulate their resources, beliefs, and strategies in the service of an achievement goal (Bail, Zhang, & Tachiyama, 2008). In the same way, when Albaili (1998) investigated the relationship among the learning goal orientations, use of cognitive strategies, and academic achievement of middle-east college students it was found that when students score higher in the learning or mastery goal orientation, elaboration and organizational strategies were likely to be used in their cognitive engagement. On the other hand, rehearsal and low levels of elaboration and organizational strategies use were found on performance goal orientation. These findings were consistent with Elliot, McGregor, and Gables (1999) results, where Hong Kong students who use mastery goals were significantly and positively related to adopting a deep learning strategy in studying but it was negatively related to surface strategy. For performance- type of goals, both approach and avoidance goals were significantly related to adopting shallow or surface strategy to studying (Chan, Leung, & Lai, 2005; Chan & Lai 2008). Bernardo (2002) studied about the causal relationship between value of education, achievement goals (mastery goals, performance-approach goals and performance-avoidance goals) and learning strategies (rehearsal, elaboration, organization, critical thinking, and metacognition) between low achieving and average-achieving Filipino students and discovered a pattern that if students have a low regard to education they less likely adopt achievement goals orientations and also less likely use learning strategies. Two other studies conducted by Bernardo (2003, 2004) tested the relationship between culturally-rooted beliefs and social axioms with achievement goals (mastery goals, performance goals, and work avoidance goals) and learning strategies (rehearsal, elaboration, organization, critical thinking, metacognition). The study yielded results related to the correlation between achievement goals and learning strategies such as mastery goals were related to all learning strategies and performance goals were related to all learning strategies (Bernardo, 2003; Bernardo, 2004). In summary, our present research will focus on the correlational utility of the 2 x 2 achievement goal framework (mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance, performanceapproach and performance-avoidance) to learning and study strategies (information processing, selecting main ideas, test strategies, anxiety, attitude, motivation, concentration, self-testing, study aids and time management) of Filipino college students in a basic college mathematics classroom. The study speculates that adopting one specific achievement goal can yield more than to a number of different learning and study strategies through a positive relationship.
116
The Present Study The present study is anchored on the 2 x 2 Achievement Goal Framework. The framework provides the same explanation that students have their own understanding and distinctive orientation towards the types of goals they use for the purpose of engaging in tasks such as implementing learning strategies, and reaching for existing standards or criteria which is self-referenced or social comparative (Elliot & Church, 1997; Pintrich, 2000). Mastery-approach goals define competence as intrapersonal and absolute and it valence towards attaining success (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Mastery-avoidance goals defines competence also as intrapersonal and it valences towards avoiding failures (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Performance-avoidance goals defines competence as interpersonal and normative and it valences towards avoiding failures (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Performance-approach goals defines competence as interpersonal and normative and it valences towards attaining success (Elliot & McGregor, 2001).Research shows that 2x2 framework works better because these four factor structure fits better than the use of the trichotmous or dichotomous models (Kaliski, Finney, & Horst, 2006). Individual differences in terms of goal orientations namely for mastery-approach, performance- approach and performance-avoidance learners is evident in the use of their cognitive and metacognitive strategies translated through learning and study strategies (Somuncuoglu & Yildirim, 1999; Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Learning and study strategies are divided into three specific main components which are skill, will and self-regulation. The skill component involves cognitive strategies consisting of selecting main ideas, information processing and test strategies (Weinstein & Palmer, 2002). It helps students to implement techniques on how they would encode, elaborate and organize information (Weinstein & Palmer, 2002). The self- regulation component is related to metacognitive strategies that deal with concentration, time management, study aids and self-testing (Weinstein & Palmer, 2002). It helps students to plan, monitor and regulate their control towards their learning (Weinstein & Palmer, 2002). In addition, the will component focuses on anxiety, attitude and motivation of students towards their academic performance, success and requirements which measures affective strategies in learning (Weinstein & Palmer, 2002). The proposed convergent validity between specific achievement goals and learning and study strategies is tested in the present study using path analysis. The model indicates the individual effect of each achievement goal on a specific learning and study strategy as measured by the LASSI. Validity is established by obtaining significant paths from the achievement goal factors to the study strategy factors. Convergent validity is attained by the positive parameter estimates and positive zero-order correlations. Such convergence would mean similarity in the proposed theoretical link between the achievement goal and study strategy constructs. Divergent validity is obtained through significant negative parameter estimates and negative zero-order correlations. The divergence means dissimilarity or opposite direction of the scales involved. Consistent with literature, mastery-approach goals and performance-approach goals yield positive association to all learning strategies in college mathematics learning. Masteryapproach goals and performance- approach goals were positive indicators of surface learning strategies such as rehearsal, elaboration and organization, deep learning strategies such as critical thinking and metacognition, use of cognitive engagement or self- regulation
117
(Albaili, 1998; Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999; Bernardo, 2003b; Bernardo, 2004; Bernardo, 2005b; Chan, Leung & Lai, 2005; Gutman, 2006; Leigh, Husman, Duggan, & Pennington, 2007 Chan, & Lai, 2008). It can be generated from the literature that both mastery-avoidance and performance-avoidance goals does have a positive association with motivation, time management, self- testing, and study aids. Researchers argue that based from previous studies both mastery-avoidance and performance-avoidance orientations were positive indicators of cognitive disengagement, disorganization, lack of persistence and effort, state test anxiety, worry, emotionality and procrastination, low self-efficacy (low motivational belief) (Rosenhaultz & Simpson, 1984; Meece, Hoyle and Blumenfeld, 1988; Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999; Somuncuoglu & Yildrim, 1999; Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Midgley, et al, 2002; Greene et al, 2004; Wolters, 2004; Linnenbrink, 2005; Duperyat & Marine, 2005; Gutman, 2006; Watson, 2007) There is a need to study the relationship between achievement goals and learning and study strategies because (1) students perceptions about their effort or ability being translated into achievement goals influence the quality or degree of using learning and study strategies in solving learning problems like in mathematics (2) studies on the 2 x 2 achievement goal framework (mastery- approach, mastery- avoidance, performanceapproach and performance avoidance) of goal orientation are mostly western in perspective and therefore this study wanted to provide more information for the correlational utility of these achievement goals especially for mastery-avoidance in an Asian setting more specifically for Filipino college students since studies about the positive associations of different achievement goals to different learning strategies used trichotomous model of achievement goal orientation from Hong Kong Chinese Filipinos and Singaporeans participants. The study determines the relationship of achievement goals with learning and study strategies in domain specific to mathematics. The present study aims to: (1) determine the convergence and divergence of the achievement goals and study strategies subscales, (2) test the consistency of the zero order-correlations in a path model where specific achievement goal scales predicts the factors of study strategies, and (3) test if the overall path model will fit the observations when the items are contextualized in mathematics learning. Method Participants The participants were 260 college freshmen students enrolled in a mathematics course in a private university in the Philippines. The students participated in exchange for extra credit. The participants that were selected are currently taking fundamental mathematics course. During their four years in high school, their mathematics education started from Basic or Elementary Algebra during first year, Intermediate Algebra during second year, Geometry during third year, and Trigonometry during their fourth year.
118
Instrument Achievement Goal Questionnaire. This is a 12-item questionnaire designed to capture each of the four described goals orientations (mastery- approach, masteryavoidance, performance- approach, and performance avoidance orientation). Participants answered the items using a seven point scale (1=not at all true of me, 2=moderately not true of me, 3=slightly not true of me, 4=neither not true nor true of me, 5=slightly true of me, 6=moderately true of me, and 7=very true of me). The subscales on mastery approach, mastery- avoidance, performance- approach, and performance avoidance has a Cronbachs alpha of 0.87, 0.89, 0.92 and 0.83 respectively (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Convergent validity was used to assess the validity. For this study, reliability was tested using the Cronbachs alpha which of the four 2 x 2 achievement goals. The obtained Cronbachs alpha was 0.76 for performance- avoidance, 0.90 for performance- approach, 0.82 for mastery- avoidance, 0.81 for mastery- approach and 0.81 for the whole achievement goal questionnaire. For this study, reliability was tested by obtaining Cronbachs alpha for performance-avoidance subscale, performance-approach subscale, mastery-avoidance subscale, mastery-approach subscale and for the whole achievement goal questionnaire which are 0.76, 0.90, 0.82, 0.81, and 0.81 respectively. Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI). The LASSI is composed of 77 items that serve as a prescriptive and diagnostic assessment of students awareness about the use of learning and study strategies. Each item is answered using a 5-point scale. The three components cover the scope of: (a) Skill-learning strategies, skills and thought processes that help prepare and demonstrate new knowledge on tests or other evaluative procedures, (b) Will-worry to academic performance, receptivity to learning new information, attitudes and interest in college, diligence, self-discipline, and willingness to exert the effort necessary to successfully complete academic requirements and (c) SelfRegulation-manage, or self-regulate and control, the whole learning process through time management, maintaining concentration, checking learning demands, an and using study aids (Weinstein & Palmer, 2002). Participants answered the learning and study strategies inventory in such a way where cases and scenarios on education and classroom were presented. After which, they assessed on how often do they do the given case/scenario through the response format Not at all like me (has this not necessarily meant that the statement/case would never describe the participant, rather it would be true very rarely for the participant), Not very much like me (this would mean that generally, the statement would not be true about the participant), Somewhat like me (this would mean that the case/ situation would be true for the participant about half of the time), Fairly much like me (this would mean that the situation would be true most of the time with the participant) and Very much like me (this not necessarily means that the statement/case would always describe the participant, rather it would be true for the participant most of the time). The reliability of LASSI indicates a Cronbachs Alpha of .84, .89, and .80 for Information Processing, Selecting Main Ideas and Test Strategies scales for the Skill component respectively. For the scales of the Will component, Anxiety, Attitude and Motivation indicate a Cronbachs Alpha score of .87, .77, and .84, respectively. The Cronbachs alpha scores of concentration, self-testing, study aids, and time management for the selfregulation component obtain .86, .84, .73, and .85 correspondingly. Also, a test-retest
119
correlation of .88 was computed for the total instrument. There were different approaches the author used to determine the validity of learning and study strategies inventory: (1) The scale scores were compared to other tests or subscales which are measuring related factors; (2) some scales were validated adjacent to performance measures; and (3) the learning and study strategies inventory had repeated tests of user validity (Weinstein & Palmer, 2002). In this study reliability was tested through Cronbachs alpha of all ten subscales of learning and study strategies. The Cronbachs alpha scores obtained was 0.54 for information processing, 0.58 for selecting main ideas, 0.53 for test strategies, 0.50 for anxiety, 0.60 for attitude, 0.51 for motivation, 0.52 for concentration, 0.54 for self- testing, 0.58 for study aids, and 0.50 for time management. Procedure All 260 participants were selected through purposive sampling. All the participants were briefed about the guidelines in answering the questionnaires. The participants were guided accordingly on how they answered the forms: (1) The researcher gave the rationale of the study and that they should read the questions carefully; (2) they were briefed that there are no right or wrong answers for the achievement goal questionnaire and LASSI. The researcher informed the participants that the study is trying to get authentic answer as much as possible for more accurate result. The participants were also made aware that their answers will not affect their class standings in school and failure to follow the guidelines will be forfeited on the participation in the study. The researcher administered to the participants the Achievement Goal Questionnaire and the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory at the same time. The researcher then scored the questionnaires for each subscale of the achievement goal questionnaire (mastery- approach, mastery- avoidant, performance- approach or performance avoidant group) and LASSI (Information Processing, Selecting Main Ideas, Test Strategies, Anxiety, Attitude, Motivation, Concentration, Self- Testing, Study Aids and Time Management). Each participant was assigned with a research call number used for the purpose of identification and recording for all the instruments. Results The descriptive statistics of the different variables are briefly presented. Means and standard deviations were obtained. The internal consistency of the scales was also determined using Cronbachs alpha. Zero-order correlations were conducted between the subscales of the achievement goals and LASSI, within the subscales of achievement goals, and within the subscales of the LASSI. The prediction from achievement goals to LASSI was tested using path analysis. The mean scores, standard deviations, and internal consistencies of the different subscales of both achievement goals and learning and study strategies are summarized in Table 1. For achievement goals, the students in the sample tend to hold strong adoption to mastery-approach goals and performance-avoidance goals and relative to both performance-approach goals and to mastery-avoidance goals. In terms of learning and study strategies, motivation and selecting main ideas reported stronger use while time management, attitude, and concentration showed relatively strong use for students.
120
Information processing, anxiety, study aids and test strategies held moderate use for students learning and study strategies. Self-testing obtained the weak score students use among all the learning and study strategies. Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Achievement Goals and LASSI Variable M

Achievement Goals Performance-Avoidance Performance-Approach Mastery-Avoidance Mastery-Approach Learning and Study Strategy Information Processing Selecting Main ideas Test strategies Anxiety Attitude Motivation Concentration Self-testing Study-Aids Time Management 5.45 4.34 4.46 5.46 2.9 3.06 2.88 2.89 3 3.07 3 2.77 2.89 3.01
SD
1.27 1.66 1.4 1.2 0.54 0.58 0.53 0.5 0.6 0.52 0.54 0.6 0.55 0.52
Cronbach's alpha .81 .76 .90 .82 .81 .92 .49 .55 .49 .46 .47 .51 .52 .54 .58 .50
Table 1 Zero-Order Correlation of LASSI and Achievement Goals PerformanceApproach -.06 .15** .13** .12** .13** .14** .02 -.01 .01 .16** PerformanceAvoidance .12** .25** -.03 .09 .12** .15** .18** .08 .21** .14** MasteryAvoidance .15** .29** .16** .16** .16** .27** .28** .20** .17** .18** MasteryApproach -.02 .24** .02 .04 .08 .10 .04 -.04 .01 .20**
Information Processing Selecting Main ideas Test strategies Anxiety Attitude Motivation Concentration Self-testing Study-Aids Time Management
Table 2 summarizes the correlations among the different subscales of achievement goals (mastery-approach goals, mastery-avoidance goals, performance-approach goals and
121
performance-avoidance goals) and learning and study strategies (information processing, selecting main ideas, test strategies, anxiety, attitude, motivation, concentration, self-testing, study aids, and time management). Regarding the relationship between the different achievement goals, it was hypothesized that mastery-approach goals would be associated with all use of learning and study strategies but statistical analysis did not reveal complete association of all learning and study strategies. Only selecting main ideas and time management were correlated to mastery-approach goals. The same was hypothesized for performance-approach goals. However, only selecting main ideas, test strategies, attitude, motivation, and time management showed positive correlation to performance-approach goals. For mastery-avoidance goals, it was tentatively hypothesized that mastery-avoidance goals will be correlated to all learning and study strategies except for time management, motivation, self-testing and study aids. Surprisingly, all different learning and study strategies were found to be associated with mastery-avoidance goals. The same hypothesis was tested also to performance-avoidance goals and the result of the correlational analysis revealed that self-testing was not associated with performance-avoidance goals. However time management, motivation, and study aids were not found to be associated with performance-avoidance which was also an unexpected new finding for this study. Also, attitudes and concentration were found to be positively associated to performanceavoidance which somehow supported our hypothesis. It is also interesting to note that the selecting main ideas subscale and the time management subscale are positively associated with all four achievement goals. Table 3
Intercorrelations of the Subscales of the Achievement Goals

Performanceapproach --Performanceavoidance .13** --Masteryavoidance .14** .31** --Masteryapproach .35** .37** .26** ---
Performance-approach Performance-avoidance Mastery-avoidance Mastery-approach **p<.05
Table 3 describes the inter-correlations between the subscales of Achievement Goal Questionnaire. Results indicate rather moderate to weak correlations among achievement goals. There was a weak positive correlation between the performance-avoidance and performance-approach. The correlation suggest that the goal of trying to perform better to others to avoid being labeled a failure is somewhat likely associated with the goal of trying to perform better than others to attain high self-approval and self- esteem. Also, there is a weak positive correlation between mastery-avoidance and performance-approach but a moderately strong correlation between mastery-avoidance and performance-avoidance. This suggest that the goal of striving to reach absolute requirements to avoid the experience of failure is also likely to be accompanied with goal of trying to perform better than others to attain high self-approval and self- esteem. On the other hand, there is a moderately strong association between the goal of avoiding failures even if the basis of competence is from personal criteria of success or from a normative criterion of success in the classroom.
122
For mastery-approach, there is a moderately strong correlation to all its counterparts namely: performance-approach, performance-avoidance and mastery-avoidance. It can be inferred that the goal of striving to success based on personal and absolute standards is more likely associated with all other goals which avoids failure like with performanceavoidance and mastery-avoidance and which are normative in nature such as with performance-approach and performance-avoidance. The kind of association between mastery-approach goals to performance-approach, performance-avoidance is quite puzzling. Table 3
Intercorrelations of the Subscales of LASSI

(1) (1) Information Processing (2) Selecting Main ideas (3) Test strategies (4) Anxiety (5) Attitude (6) Motivation (7) Concentration (8) Self-testing (9) Study-Aids (10) Time Management (2) .42** --(3) .49** .51** --(4) .49** .45** .55** --(5) .45** .52** .55** .49** --(6) .48** .50** .48** .60** .55** --(7) .48** .53** .50** .52** .52** .60** --(8) .55** .55** .66** .61** .48** .54** .53** --(9) .51** .50** .54** .62** .45** .56** .59** .67** --(10) .36** .55** .46** .40** .40** .45** .43** .41** .39** ---
**p<.01 Table 4 shows the inter-correlation for the different learning and study strategies, and the results indicate rather high to moderate correlations among the various learning and study strategies. The pattern suggests either least three explanations: First, the sample of students tends to use these strategies all together in association. Second, the sample of students is not distinguishing well their learning and study strategies well enough. Three, the sample of students is not aware and reflecting their use of different learning and study strategies. The four achievement goals were used to predict the subscales of the LASSI using path analysis. The procedure allows verification of the results of the zero order correlation and the overall model as a whole is also tested for goodness of fit. When the path model was tested, all paths from the four achievement goals were significant in explaining the variance for each learning and study strategies. It can also be noted that all achievement goals had a strong path for selecting main ideas and time management. Achievement goals predict well the study strategies involved in selecting main ideas and time management. Self-testing and test strategies obtained low estimates as predicted by the achievement goals, however they are still significant. The path model also attained an adequate fit: 2=114.78, RMSEA.=04, CFI=.91, GFI=.91, PGI=.93, and TLI=.91. The results in the zero-order correlation showed very few significant correlations of the study strategies for mastery-approach. However, the results of the path analysis showed significant estimates for mastery-approach.
123
Mastery-Approach Goals
.10* .52* .12* .60* .08* .10* .06* .10*
Motivation Time Management
.06*
.16*
Information Processing Selecting Main Ideas Test Strategies Attitude Anxiety Concentration
MasteryAvoidance Goals
.22* .11* .11* .10* .22* .19* .27* .08* .11* .10* .20*
PerformanceAvoidance Goals
.21* .24* .08*
.07* .08* .15*
Self-Testing Study-Aids
PerformanceApproach Goals
.08* .19*
Figure 1
Path Model for the Convergence of Achievement Goals and LASSI
Discussion The study was undertaken to determine the convergence and divergence between achievement goals and learning and study strategies. It was hypotheses that a pattern would exist regarding the possible association between among the variables of achievement goals namely: mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance, performance-approach and performanceapproach to specific variables of learning and study strategies which are information processing, selecting main ideas, test strategies, anxiety, attitude, motivation, concentration, self-testing, study-aids and time management. However, it was found in the path analysis that all factors of the achievement goals converged with the study strategies.
124
The results of the study showed that the 2 x 2 achievement goal framework is helpful for conceptualizing the use of different learning and study strategies of college students from their achievement goals in the context of a basic college mathematics course. It should be noted that low internal consistency reliability was found for the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory. The study could not be completely conclusive on the reliability on the scales obtained for the LASSI. Future investigations should help ensure the reliability of the scales to improve the validity of the study. Many of the results are surprising for the correlation between the specific achievement goals to different learning and study strategies. One would be the positive association between mastery-avoidance goal to all learning and study strategies. It can be explained by the belief students who adopt mastery-avoidance need to reach high standards by avoiding failure (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Based on prior studies on avoidant orientation, students with avoidance type of goals indicates low motivation, task disengagement, surface learning, disorganization, low levels of cognitive engagement, and low reports of mastering the materials or task, less use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies, low persistence, and high procrastination (Meece, Hoyle, & Bluemenfeld, 1988; Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999; Turner, Midgley, Meyer, Gheen, Anderman, Kang, & Patrick, 2002; Wolters, 2004; Kolic-Vehovec, Roncevic, & Bajsanski, 2008; Lau & Nie, 2008). Contrary to performance-avoidance that demonstrates a lack of ability just to gain self-approval of self-esteem in front of other people, the advantage of mastery- avoidance is to demonstrate more than what is expected beyond normative comparisons to gain personal and absolute standards of performance and achievement. In addition, Elliot and McGregor (2001) described that empirical prediction on mastery- avoidance goal is dual because it has both an optimal antecedent that facilitate positive consequences like masteryapproach goals and an non- optimal component to have negative consequences like performance-avoidance. Therefore it is impossible to determine if the relative strength of optimal and non- optimal components is in conjunction to each other (Elliot & McGregor, 2001) but some studies showed that mastery- avoidance goals can also predict cognitive strategies yet it must be mediated by other factors such as persistence, procrastination (Wolters, 2004; Howell & Watson, 2007). In this study, mastery- avoidance has more optimal components and positive consequences. With this reason, the study speculate that these Filipino students adopt and exhaust all types of strategies in order to reach their goal to avoid the risk of experiencing dismay within themselves because they cannot reach their intrapersonal and absolute standards about their performance and achievement even with regards to mathematics. Another new finding is that Filipino college student who placed an emphasis on performance approach has more use of learning and study strategies compared to masteryapproach goals. This result supports previous research that in some cases performanceapproach goals produces adaptive patterns of learning despite of examining performance approach goals independently with mastery-approach goals (Harackiewicz, Barron, & Elliot, 1998; Midgley, Kaplan, & Middleton, 2001; Bernardo, 2003b; Bernardo, 2004; Bernardo, 2005b). The findings also supports a number of studies that performanceapproach goals has a positive relation to cognitive, metacognitive, and self- regulatory strategies specifically on English, social studies, and mathematics (Midgley, Kaplan, & Middleton, 2001).
125
It is interesting to note that the two subscales of LASSI which are selecting main ideas and time management are significant to all achievement goals. Selecting main ideas is a surface learning strategy that deals with choosing important material for in-depth attention and separating unimportant or simply didactic information that does not have to be remembered (Weinstein & Palmer, 2002). Based on prior research, surface learning strategies such as selecting main ideas which quite similar to organization learning strategies have positive association with both mastery and performance type of goals more specifically when tested to Filipino student samples (Bernardo, 2003b; Bernardo, 2004; Bernardo, 2005b). Since time management is a self- regulatory skill that assesses proper distribution of time from single to multiple task in maximizing performance and achievement (Weinstein, & Palmer, 2002). Time management is also a practice of metacognition because it requires students some knowledge about themselves as students and learners to schedule and finish their academic demands effectively (Weinstein & Palmer, 2002). In addition, when students are self-aware they are also able to create motivation, accept more responsibility, set realistic goals and create plans that will facilitate their goal achievement (Weinstein, & Palmer, 2002). In this case, what the Filipino student samples facilitate are goals that aim to avoid experiencing failures and to show people or their classmates that they are competent. Considering the fact that the participants are Filipino college students, mixed results of deep or surface approach as a consequence of different achievement goals (mastery goals, performance-approach and work-avoidance) can be obtained (Bernardo, 2003b). Also, the outcomes of the relationship of goal orientations to learning and study strategies is more meaningful if dependent or based on context which is in this study a basic mathematics course on a college level (Pintrich & Garcia, 1991; cited in Somuncuoglu &Yildirim, 1999; Gutman, 2006). It was hypothesized that there will be a significant relationship within the subscales of achievement goals and within the subscales of learning and study strategies. Performance-approach, performance-avoidance, mastery-avoidance and mastery-approach goals were all significantly related to each other with a positive magnitude. Consistent with prior research, college students belonging Asian countries like Filipinos showed the same positive correlation within mastery and performance goals (Bernardo, 2002; Bernardo 2003b; Bernardo, 2004; Bernardo, 2005b; Chan, Lai, Leung, & Moore, 2005; Ee & Moor, 2004; cited in Bernardo, 2008,Tao & Hong, 2000; cited in Chan & Lai, 2006). Information processing, selecting main ideas, test strategies, anxiety, attitudes, motivation, concentration, self- testing, study aids, and time management were significantly related to each other in terms of mathematics course. Previous studies do not report consistent significant correlations among different learning strategies among college students even if in the context of mathematics- related course (Rhody, 1993; Smith, 1995; Clow, 1998; Primus, 2003; Hoveland, 2006; Leigh, Husman, & Duggan, 2007). This can be explained that when Filipino college students socialize and affiliate to their peers their academic motivation and cognitive resources about the nature of their task neither single or multiple, there is an increase their high performance and intrinsic task engagement (Bernardo, Zhang & Callueng, 2002; Church, & Katigbak, 1992). All learning and study strategies work well among Filipino students adopting certain achievement goals in processing math courses because they specialized the meaning of mathematical task by comfortably using their own language especially with conversations with their seatmates
126
during the process of learning and developing mathematical knowledge in the classroom (Gallos, 2003). References Albaili, M. A. (1998). Goal orientations, cognitive strategies and academic achievement among United Arab Emirates college students. Educational Psychology, 18(2), 195203. Ames, A., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260267. Bail, F. T., Zhang, S., & Tachiyama, G. T. (2008). Effects of a self- regulated learning course on the academic performance and graduation rate of college students in an academuic support program. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 39(1), 5473. Braten, I., & Olaussen, B (1998). Identifying latent variables measured by the learning and study strategies inventory (LASSI) in Norwegian college students. Learning and Individual Difference, 10(4), 309- 327. Braten, I., & Olaussen, B. (2000). Motivation in college: Understanding Norwegian college students performance on the LASSI motivation subscale and their beliefs about academic motivation. Learning and Individual Difference, 12, 177- 187. Bernardo, A. B. I. (1996). Task specificity in the use of word in mathematics: Evidence from bilingual problem solvers. International Journal of Psychology, 31(1), 13- 28. Bernardo, A. B. I., Zhang, L. R., & Callueng, C. M. (2002). Thinking styles and academic achievement among Filipino students. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163, 149-163. Bernardo, A. B. I. (2003a). Approaches to learning and academic achievement of Filipino students. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 164(1), 101- 114. Bernardo, A. B. I. (2003b). Do Filipino youth really value education? Exploring Filipino adolescents beliefs about the abstract and pragmatic value of education and its relationship to achievement goals and learning strategies. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 36, 4967. Bernardo, A. B. I. (2004). Culturally rooted beliefs and learning: Exploring the relationships among social axioms, achievement goals, and learning strategies of Filipino college students. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 37, 79100. Bernardo, A. B. I. (2005a). Language and modeling word problems in mathematics among bilinguals. The Journal of Psychology, 139(5), 413- 425. Bernardo, A. B. I. (2005b). Exploring new areas for helping low-achieving students in the Philippines: Beliefs, goals, and strategies. In A. D. Thomas, N. Dayan, A. B. I. Bernardo, & R. Roth (Eds.), Helping others grow (pp. 133142). Aachen, Germany: Shaker Verlag. Bernardo, A. B. I. (2008). Individual and social dimensions of Filipino students achievement goals. International Journal of Psychology, 43(5), 886-891.
127
Chrysikou, E.V. (2006). When shoes become hammers: Goal derived categorization training enhances problem solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 32, 935- 942. Chamot, A. (2004). Issues in language learning strategy research and teaching. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1, 14-26. Chan, K. W., Lai, P. Y., & Leung, M. T. (2005). Students goal orientation, study strategies and achievement : A closer look in Hong Kong Chinese cultural context. The AsiaPacific Educational Researcher, 14(1), 1- 26. Chan, K. W., & Lai, P. Y. (2008). Revisiting the trichotomous achievement goal framework for hong kong secondary students: A structural model analysis. The Asia- Pacific Education Researcher, 16(1), 1- 21. Church, A. T., & Katigbak, M. S. (1992). The cultural context of academic motives: A comparison of filipino and American college students. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 23(1), 40-58. Clow, E. D. (1998). Two-year college college students in interactive distance education
classes: The relationship of learning strategies to persistence and performance.

Thesis Dissertation. University of Georgia. Conceicao, S. (2004). Exploring the relationship between learning style and critical thinking in an online course. [on-line available] https://idea.iupui.edu/dspace/bitstream/1805/246/1/Conceicao1.pdf Davis, A (2006). Social cognitive research. [on-line available] http://www.istheory.yorku.ca/socialcognitivetheory.htm Duperyat, C., & Marine, C. (2005). Implicit theories of intelligence, goal orientation, cognitive engagement and achievement: A test of Dwecks model with returning school adults. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(1), 43-59. Dweck, C. S. (1985) Intrinsic motivation, perceived control, and self-evaluation maintenance: An achievement goal analysis. Research on Motivation in Education, 2. New York: Academic Press Elliot, A., & Church, M. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218-232. Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A., & Gable, S. (1999). Achievement goals, study strategies, and exam performance: A mediational analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 549- 563. Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 x 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501- 519. Flowers, L. A. (2003). Test- retest reliability of the learning and study strategies inventory (LASSI): New evidence. Reading Research and Instruction, 43(1), 31- 47. Gallos, F. L. (2003). Patterns of students private conversations in a mathematics classroom. Paper presented: Conference of the Learners Perspective Study international research team. University of Melbourne. Gutman, L. M. (2006). How student and parent goal orientations and classroom goal structures influence the math achievement of African Americans during high school transitions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 44-63. Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Rethinking achievement goals: When are they adaptive for college students and why? Educational Psychologist, 33, 1- 21.
128
Heard, M. (2002). The relationship between learning and study skills and student persistence on community college. Thesis Dissertation. University of Virginia. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88-140. Howell, A. J., & Watson, D. C. (2007). Procastination: Association with achievement goal orientation and learning strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(1), 167- 178. Hoveland, C. M. (2006). Relationship between learning and study strategies and academic achievement in associate degree nursing students. Thesis Dissertation. University of Wyoming. Inman, J. (2006). Social cognitive theory: A synthesis. [on-line available] http://www.wetherhaven.com/Documents/socialcognitivetheory.pdf Jarvela, S., & Salovaara, H. (2004). The interplay of motivational goals and cognitive strategies in a new pedagogical culture. European Psychologist, 9, 232- 244. Kaliski, P. K., Finney, S. J., & Horst, S. J. (2006). Does socioeconomic status influence
achievement goal adoption? An investigation of group differences using structured means modeling. Paper presentation at the 2006 meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco, California. Kolic-Vehovec, S., Roncevic, B., & Bajsanski, I. (2008). Motivational components of selfregulated learning and reading strategy use in university students: The role of goal orientation patterns. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(1), 108- 113. Leigh, M. W., Husman, J., Duggan, M. A., & Pennington, M. N. (2007). Online mathematics achievement: Effects of learning strategies and self- efficacy. Journal of Developmental Education, 30(3), 6-13. Liem, A. D., Lau, S., & Nie, Y. (2008). The role of self- efficacy, task value, and achievement goals in predicting learning strategies, task disengagement, peer relationship, and academic outcome. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 486-512. Linnenbrink, E. A. (2005). The dilemma performance- approach goals: The use of multiple goal contexts to promote students motivation and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 197- 213. Masters, L. F., Mori, B. A., & Mori, A. A.(1993) Teaching secondary students wild mild learning and behavior problems: Methods, materials, strategies (2nd ed.). Texas: ProEd. Meece, J. L., Hoyle, R. H., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (1988). Students goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514- 523. Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001).Performance- approach goals: Good for what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 77- 86. Muis, K. R. (2004). Personal epistemology and mathematics: A critical review and synthesis of research. Review of Educational Research, 74, 317377. Muis, K. R. (2008). Epistemic profiles and self-regulated learning: Examining relations in the context of mathematic problem solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 177- 208.
129
Myers, N. A. (1999). A study of the learning strategies of metacognition, metamotivation, metamemory, critical thinking, and resource management of nursing students on a regional campus of a large midwestern university. AAT 9924369, [on-line available]http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=733955791&sid=1&Fmt=2&clientI d=47883&RQT=309&VName=PQD Learning strategies. (2006). Retrieved July 30, 2008 from Professional learning and Leadership development [on-line available] http://www.emedicinehealth.com/stress/article_em Lindsay, S. (2003). Progress feature: Task achievement. Database Info, 3- 10. Nisbet, J., & Shucksmith, A. (1986) Learning strategies. [on-line available] http://www.k12.nf.ca/fatima/define.htm Oxford, R. (1990). Learning strategies. [on-line available] http://www.k12.nf.ca/fatima/define.htm Pascarella, E. (1989). The development of critical thinking: Does college make a difference. Journal of College Student Development, 30, 19-26. Pintrich, P. R. (1995). Understanding self- regulated learning. In P. R. Pintrich (Ed.), Understanding self- regulated learning (pp. 3- 12). San Fransisco: Jossey- Bass Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The Role of Goal Orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544- 555. Pintrich P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self- regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 385- 407. Primus, P. (2003). Use of the learning and study skills inventory (LASSI) as a predictor of success in associate degree nursing students. Masters Thesis. University of Wyoming. Proctor, B., Prevatt, F., Adams, K., Hurst, A., & Petscher, Y. (2006). Study Skills Profiles of normal-achieving and academically-struggling college students. Florida State University, Tallahassee ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Vol. 47, Iss. 1, [on-line availble]http://0proquest.umi.com.lib1000.dlsu.edu.ph:80/pqdweb?did=986122521 &sid=3&Fmt=4&clientId=47883&RQT=309&VName=PQD Rhody. T. W. (1993). The study skills, habits, and attitudes of high school freshmen and their relationship to first- term academic achievement. Thesis Dissertation. University of Oregon. Roebken, H., (2007) multiple goals, satisfaction, and achievement in university undergraduate education: a student experience in the research [on-line available] http://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/docs/ROP.Roebken.2.07.pdf Ruggerio , V. R. (1988). Teaching thinking across the curriculum. New York: Harper & Row. Sizoo, S. L., Jerrome, A., & Wilfried , I. (2008). Measuring and developing the learning strategies of adult career and vocational education students. Education, 125(4), 527538. Smith, M. L. (1995) A quantitative analysis of critical thinking abilities, learning and study strategies, and academic achievement in associate degree nursing students. Ph.D. dissertation, Boston College, United States -- Massachusetts. Dissertations & Theses: A&I database. (Publication No. AAT 9602082)
130
Somuncuoglu, Y., & Yildirim, A. (1999). Relationship between achievement goal orientations and use of learning strategies. Journal of Educational Research, 92, 267-277. Standage, M, & Treasure, D. (2002). Relationship among achievement goalorientations and multidimensional situationalmotivation in physical education. British Journal of Educational Psychology , 72, 87103. Teaching and learning strategy. (2002, September). New horizons from learning. [on-line available] http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/front_strategies.html Turner, J. C., Midgley, C., Meyer, D. K., Gheen, M., Anderman, E. M., Kang, Y., & Patrick, H. (2002). The classroom environment and students' reports of avoidance strategies in mathematics: A multimethod study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 88- 106. Vermetten, , Y. J., Lodewijks, H. G., & Vermunt, J. D. (2001). The role of personality traits and goal orientations in strategy use. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 149- 170. Was, C. (2006). Academic achievement goal orientation: taking another look. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology , 10, 531-546. Walker, S. (2003) Active Learning Strategies to Promote Critical Thinking. [on-line available] http:www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender. i?artid=233182 publication number: PMC233182 Watson, D. (2006) Procrastination: Associations with achievement goal orientation and learning strategies aDepartment of Psychology, Grant MacEwan College, P.O. Box 1796, Edmonton, Alta., Canada T5J 2P2 [on-line available] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9FWest, K. S. (1994). Enhancing critical thinking in the political science curriculum. D.A. dissertation, Idaho State University, United States -- Idaho. Dissertations & Theses: A&I database. (Publication No. AAT 9420271). Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). Learning strategies. [on-line available] Website: http://www.k12.nf.ca/fatima/define.htm Wolters, C. A. (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory: Using goal structures and goal orientations to predict students motivation, cognition, and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 236- 250. Weinstein, C. E., & Palmer, D. R. (2002). LASSI: User's manual learning and study strategies inventory second edition. FL: H&H Pub. Yip, M. C. W., & Chung, O. L. L. (2005). Relationship of study strategies and academic performance in different learning phases of higher education in Hong Kong. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11(1), 34-46. Yip, M. C. W. (2007). Differences in learning and study strategies between high and low achievement university. A Hong Kong study. Educational Psychology, 27, 597- 606. Zweig, D., & Webster J. (2004). Validation of a Multidimensional Measure of Goal Orientation. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 36(3), 232-243.
131
About the Author Dr. Carlo Magno is presently a faculty of the Counseling and Educational Psychology Department at De La Salle University, Manila. He has an active research agenda on student learning strategies. Further correspondence can be addressed to him at carlo.magno@dlsu.ph.

Assessing Students' Study Strategies and Achievement Goals

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessing Students' Study Strategies and Achievement Goals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

108

Assessing Students Study Strategies and Achievement Goals Carlo Magno

De La Salle University, Manila

Keywords: Learning strategies, Achievement goals, Mathematics learning

2012 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

Descriptive Statistics for Achievement Goals and LASSI Variable M

Intercorrelations of the Subscales of the Achievement Goals

Performance-approach Performance-avoidance Mastery-avoidance Mastery-approach **p<.05

Intercorrelations of the Subscales of LASSI

.10* .52* .12* .60* .08* .10* .06* .10*

Motivation Time Management

.21* .24* .08*

.07* .08* .15*

2012 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

2012 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

2012 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

classes: The relationship of learning strategies to persistence and performance.

2012 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

2012 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

2012 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

You might also like