Self-Regulation, Self-Efficacy, Metacognition,

and Achievement Goals in High School

and College Adolescents
CARLO MAGNO
JENNIFER ANN LAJOM

De La Salle University-Manila

The study investigated whether self-regulation, self-efficacy, and

metacognition can predict achievement goal orientations. There
were 153 high school students and 183 college students who
participated and surveyed using the self-regulation interview, selfefficacy questionnaire, metacognitive performance assessment, and
a goal orientation measure. In the regression model, the high school
(early adolescence) and college (late adolescence) students were
moderated in the prediction of achievement goals. College students
scored higher in all self-regulation subscales (p < .05). Mastery
goal is significantly related to all self-regulation subscales and selfefficacy. The contribution of self-efficacy on performance orientation
is significantly moderated by high school and college students.
High school students with high self-efficacy increase their
performance orientation. Self-efficacy, and self-regulation strategies
such as self-consequencing, organizing, and environmental
structuring are important characteristics of mastery-oriented
students.

It is notable that Filipino young adolescents in their high school

years perform differently compared to college students. This is not

only brought about by differences in cognitive functioning due to
age maturation but also to the kind of social environment the
adolescent is in. The cognitive processes that adolescents use
depend on the socialization process that they engage in. Such
socialization process differs across the period between early and
mid-adolescence because early adolescence is spent in high school
while mid- and late-adolescence are spent in college.

PHILIPPINE JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

(2008), Vol 41 No 1, 1-23.

According to Papalia, Olds, and Feldman (2004), adolescence is

a stage where an individual goes through a developmental
transition between childhood and adulthood entailing major
physical, cognitive, and psychosocial changes. The Society for
Research on Adolescence defines the stage as the second decade
of life (Dornbusch, 2000) and ranges from age 11 until the late
teens or early twenties. Authors of textbooks on developmental
psychology subdivide the stage into early, middle, and late
adolescence. More specifically, the sub-stages of late adolescence
are identified from post secondary education (Wintre, North, &
Sugar, 2000). Early and middle adolescents in a high school setting
therefore have a different academic and social situation as
compared to college students. For instance, early adolescence from
11 to 14 years poses opportunities for growth in cognitive and social
competence, autonomy, and self-esteem. However, this period may
be precarious too as some young adolescents may have difficulties
in coping with many changes and may need help in dealing with
these transitions.
The social learning theory of Bandura (1986) would explain that
adolescent learners' cognition is influenced by the instigation,
direction, and persistence of achievement-related behaviors. In
the process of attaining these achievement behaviors, learning
occurs from students' self-generated behaviors. These selfgenerated behaviors are framed in this study as self-regulation
strategies (Zimmerman, 2000), metacognition (Flavell, 1987), and
self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986).
The use of cognitive strategies such as self-regulation and
metacognition is said to lead to specific achievement behaviors
such as achievement goals (Elliot, 1998). The adolescent acquires
achievement-related skills and strategies that are facilitated by
age differences and specifically the context they are in (Dembo &
Eaton, 2000). The factors self-regulation, metacognition, and selfefficacy are studied as they predict achievement goals. Age sublevels
in adolescents are used to moderate the relationship between selfregulation, self-efficacy, and metacognition with achievement goals
in order to demonstrate the influence of the context between high
school and college.
There is a need to study these factors because previous research
always couple self-regulation and metacognition with the outcome
variable such as performance measured by achievement in model

building studies (Blakey & Spencer, 1990; Kluwe, 1982; Lopez, Little,
Oettingen, Baltes, 1998; Magno, 2005; Rock, 2005). However, the
achievement models in previous studies have not been
differentiated age-wise using a cross-sectional design.
Previous studies usually show that achievement goals predict
performance. Few studies use achievement goals as an outcome
considering its nature as a prelude to performance. Zimmerman
(2002) explains that when learners use self-monitoring strategies,
it guides their goal-setting. In the present study, achievement goal
orientation is used as an outcome variable of self-regulation, selfefficacy, and metacognition. Early investigations on self-regulation,
self-efficacy, and metacognition showed that such variables are
intercorrelated (Hom, Bruning, Schraw, Curry, & Katkanan, 1993;
Joo, Bong, & Choi, 2000; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1988;
Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990)
but these three variables have not been studied together to predict
achievement goal as an outcome.
Thus, the present research investigated the combined effects
of self-regulation, metacognition, and self-efficacy on the three
factors of achievement goals (performance goal, performance
avoidance and mastery goal). The aim of the study is to determine
if self-regulation - when deconstructed into components - predict
better achievement goals. Another aim is to determine the
difference between high school and college adolescents on their
use of cognitive strategies such as self-regulation, self-efficacy,
and metacognition as they predict achievement goal orientation.
Predictorsof AchievementGoals

The present study uses self-regulation, metacognition, and selfefficacy as predictors of achievement goals. The nature of these
three factors indicates that they are precursors to achievement
goals. Both self-regulation and metacognition are composed of
strategies used in order to attain specific goals in learning [Ertmer
& Newby, 1996; Ridley, Schuiltz, Glanz, & Weinstein, 1992; Schraw
& Dennison, 1994;Winn & Snyder, 1998). On the other hand, high
levels of self-efficacy are needed in order to become masteryoriented (a component of achievement goal) on different tasks
(Fiske & Taylor, 1991). There are numerous studies indicating
that high levels of self-efficacy characterize individuals with
mastery goals while low levels of self-efficacy characterize avoidant-

oriented individuals (i. e., Joo, Bong, & Choi, 2000; Shim & Ryan,
2005). The way individuals use strategies in learning can predict
their kind of achievement goals.

Self-Regulation. Self-regulation is defined by Zimmerman (2002)

as self-generated thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that are
oriented to attaining goals. Self-regulation is not a mental ability
or skill but rather a process where learners transform their mental
abilities into academic skills. Zimmerman (2002) sees selfregulation as having a three-phase structure (forethought phase,
performance phase, and self-reflection phase). When Zimmerman
and Martinez-Pons (1986) established a measure of self-regulation,
they arrived at 14 strategies that include self-evaluation,
organizing and transforming, goal-setting and planning, seeking
information, keeping records and monitoring,environmental
structuring, self-consequences, rehearsing and memorizing.
Among these strategies, the basic component skills include:
(1) setting specific proximal goals for oneself, (2) adopting powerful
strategies for attaining the goals, (3) monitoring one's performance
selectively for signs of progress, (4) restructuring one's physical
and social context to make it compatible with one's goals,
(5) managing one's time use efficiently, (6) self-evaluating one's
methods, (7) attributing causation to results, and (8) adapting future
methods. Students' levels of learning have been found to vary based
on the presence or absence of these key self-regulatory processes
(Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994; 1998).
The relationship between self-regulation and achievement
goals was evidenced in one study by Sideridis (2006). He was able
to confirm his hypothesis that feeling obliged to engage in an
activity that is grounded on fear is associated with a network of
avoidance-related behaviors. His results confirmed this hypothesis,
as the ought-self explained significant amounts of variability in
task avoidance, performance avoidance, and fear of failure. The
study of Ablard and Lipschultz (1998) likewise demonstrated that
self-regulation strategies in learning were used by students with
high achievement adopting mastery goals. Students in the sample
who were high achievers performing at or above the 97th percentile
on an achievement test tend to have mastery goals rather than
performance avoidance ones. Another study by Wolters (1998)
revealed that college students possess various strategies that allow
them to regulate their effort and persistence in accomplishing
learning tasks in school. For instance, students who utilized

intrinsic regulation strategies reported stronger learning goal

orientation as well as exhibit learning strategies associated with
elaboration, critical thinking and metacognition. Such learning
goal orientations and use of cognitive strategies were positively
correlated with course grades. Self-regulated behavior has also been
associated with the likelihood of other self-regulated processes as
well as academic learning (Fuchs, Fuchs, Prentice, Burch, Hamlett,
Owen, & Schroeter, 2003).

Metacognition. Metacognition is not simply a concept that covers

planning and other cognitive processes. It is also said to be vital in
understanding successful performance. Metacognition enables
learners to adjust consequently to changeable problem solving tasks,
demands and contexts (Dosoete, Roeyers, & Buysse, 2001). It also
has an established connection with achievement performance of
students, as evidenced in many studies (Blakey, 1990; Kluwe, 1982;
Magno, 2005; Lopez, Little, Oettingen, & Baltes, 1998; Rock, 2005;
Schneider, 1985). Students who use metacognitive strategies are
more successful. For instance, in a study by Ford, Smith, Weissbein,
Gully, and Salas (1998), students who monitored their learning by
means of identifying where they experienced difficulties and
adjusting their behaviors accordingly acquired greater knowledge,
confidence and better performance strategies in completing their
learning tasks. Individuals identified with higher mastery
orientation also exhibited greater metacognitive activity during
learning. In a similar light, Wolters (2004) conducted a study where
junior high school students (N = 525) completed a self-report survey
that assessed their perceived classroom goal structures together
with metacognitive learning. The results indicate that metacognition predicts performance orientation and mastery
orientation. Rock (2005) used an even more specific metacognitive
skill - strategic self-monitoring - and investigated its effect on
academic engagement, non-targeted problem behavior, productivity,
and accuracy of students. The results indicated that the use of
this specific metacognitive strategy decreased students'
disengagement on a task and academic productivity and accuracy
improved. Individuals who use metacognitive strategies do seem
far from being avoidant in their learning. Furthermore,
metacognition can also predict achievement goals (Elliot, McGregor,
& Gable, 1999).
Self-efficacy. Individuals have a sense of confidence regarding
performance of specific tasks or self-efficacy for learning. Self-

efficacy can be influenced by factors such as student abilities, prior

experiences and attitudes toward learning, as well as by
instructional and social factors (Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1997; Chu,
2001; Cintura, Okol, & Ong, 2001; Jinks & Morgan, 1999; Narciss,
2004; Schunk & Cox, 1986).
Self-efficacy, according to Bandura (1997), is the belief in one's
capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to
produce given attainments. Self-efficacy has a well-established link
with other factors such as metacognition and self-regulation but
needs to be explored in terms of its connection to achievement
goal orientation. There is some evidence that self-efficacy is related
to achievement goals. In a correlational study by Pintrich and
DeGroot (1990), a positive relationship was established between
self-efficacy and students' cognitive engagement and performance.
Students who displayed belief in their own capabilities reported
use of cognitive strategies, engagement in self-regulation and
persistence in difficult or uninteresting academic tasks, which
resulted in better academic performance. Similar findings were
found in the study of Phillips and Gully (1997), where students'
self-efficacy was found to positively relate to self-set goals and
higher performance. Bong (2004) assessed academic self-efficacy,
task value, ability, effort attributions with mastery, performanceapproach, and performance-avoidance achievement-goal
orientations in reference to English, Korean, mathematics, and
general school learning among 389 Korean high school girls. On
average, attributional beliefs appeared least "generalizable," across
subject areas followed by task value and mastery achievementgoal orientations. Academic self-efficacy beliefs were correlated
moderately, whereas performance-approach and performanceavoidance achievement-goal orientations were strongly correlated
across different contexts. Motivational beliefs in each of the specific
school subjects were more strongly correlated with motivational
beliefs in general school learning than with beliefs in other areas
of subject matter.
Another study by Shim and Ryan (2005) also investigated the
relationship between achievement goals and changes in students'
self-efficacy and other factors in response to grades in a shortterm longitudinal study of 361 college students. Data were collected
at the beginning of the semester and immediately after students
received their grades on their first major exam or paper. They
found that a mastery goal was associated with enhanced self-

efficacy and a performance-avoidance goal was associated with

diminished self-efficacy around the receipt of grades. A
performance-approach goal was associated with diminished selfefficacy when students received low grades but not high grades.
These studies (Bong, 2004; Shim & Ryan, 2005) show a relationship
between self-efficacy and achievement goals although not a very
explicit one. Finally, Hsieh, Sullivan, and Guerra (2007) conducted
a study on self-efficacy and goal orientation among college students
who are of good academic standing and those who are on probation.
Results showed that self-efficacy was related to student's adoption
of mastery goals, where students were able to display value for
their efforts, persist despite difficulty and engage in school-related
tasks. Self-efficacy was also reflected in high achievement as
demonstrated by successful college performance and graduation.
Compared to their counterparts, students with good academic
standing have higher self-efficacy and in turn, do not adopt
performance avoidance goals.
Achievement GoalOrientation

Goal orientation is emerging as a useful construct for understanding how people develop, attain or demonstrate competence
in learning and performance. It is generally accepted that goal
orientation comprises three factors - mastery goal, performance
goal, and performance-avoidance orientations (Elliot & Church,
1997). Achievement goal orientation represents a motivational
variable that describes the broad goals held by people when facing
a learning or performance task (Fisher & Ford, 1998). Achievement
goals are schemas or cognitive frameworks that encompass beliefs
about purpose, competence, and success that influence students'
approach to, engagement in, and evaluation of performance in
school (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Although Dweck (1986)
conceptualized dispositional goal orientation as bipolar and
unidimensional, others have claimed that goal orientation is best
understood as a two-dimensional variable. For instance,
dispositional goal orientation could be viewed as a stable trait that
assumes one of two forms: 1) a learning orientation (mastery goal)
in which the focus is on increasing competence; and 2) a performance orientation in which demonstrating competence by meeting
normative-based standards is critical (Colquitt & Simmering, 1998).
A mastery goal concerns a focus on developing competence and
gaining understanding or mastery. In contrast, a performance goal

concerns a focus on demonstrating competence. Performance

goals can be distinguished as either approach or avoidant (Elliot &
Church, 1997). A performance-approach goal concerns a focus on
gaining favorable judgments of one's ability, and a performanceavoidance goal concerns a focus on avoiding negative judgments
of one's ability. Achievement goals represent disparate purposes
for involvement regarding academic tasks and, as such, have
been linked to different achievement-related processes and
outcomes.
The selective goal pattern states that individuals may pursue
different goals in different situations (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2003).
This means that individuals' achievement goals may vary according
to identified specific contexts. In the present study the context is
operationalized by comparing high school and college students in
the prediction of their goal orientations.
The studies where self-regulation, metacognition, and selfefficacy are related to achievement goals show that all these factors
were studied separately (Ablard, Karen, Lipschultz, & Rachelle, 1998;
Bong, 2004; Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999; Shim & Ryan, 2005;
Sideridis, 2006; Rock, 2005; Wolters, 2004). Some studies only
showed their relationships without predicting achievement goals.
The aim of the present study is to determine which factor among
self-regulation, metacognition, and self-efficacy best predicts
achievement goals. The prediction is buttressed by the social
cognitive theory (Fiske & Taylor, 1991) wherein individuals are
said to make use of learning strategies, e.g., self-regulation and
metacognition, in order to gain resources to perform well. In the
present study, achievement goals with the factors of mastery,
performance, and avoidance are used as the outcome of such
learning strategies. The social cognitive theory focuses on how
people make sense of the actions of other people and themselves
(Fiske & Taylor, 1991). Students enter activities with goals and
they differ on how efficacious they feel about attaining these goals.
The sense of efficacy and strategies used are considered before
goals to learning are attained. It is hypothesized in the study that
the use of self-regulation, metacognition, and self-efficacy will
strongly predict mastery over performance approaches and
negatively predict avoidant approaches.

Cognition during Adolescence

There is a marked cognitive development from early to late

adolescence due to brain growth (Blakemore & Suprana, 2006).
Changes in executive functions and social cognition therefore
occur during puberty (early) and late adolescence. Given the process
of psychological maturity, academic performance also varies across
age groups in the adolescent stage. The report of the Carnegie
Council on Adolescent Development (1989) indicates the academic
and nonacademic outcomes during this developmental period is
due to "young adolescents facing significant turning points... for
many youth 10 to 15 years old, early adolescence offers opportunities
to choose a path toward a productive and fulfilling life... for tn.any
others, it represents their last best chance to avoid a diminished
future" (p. 8). One of the major issues in the education of young
adolescents pertains to the middle-grades school transition. For
many individuals, this transition represents the beginning of a
general deterioration in academic performance, motivation, selfperceptions of ability, and relationships with peers and teachers
(Eccles & Midgley, 1989).
The future for many adolescents is bleak unless educational
reforms influence their motivation and academic achievement.
Dembo and Eaton (2000) stressed the importance of integrating
self-regulation strategies to improve student learning especially
in middle school and high school.
Due to the marked changes from early to late adolescence
brought about by contextual differences in schooling and cognitive
development, the present study determines the difference of the
two age groups on their self-regulation, metacognition, self-efficacy,
and achievement goals. The study further tested whether' the
prediction of achievement goals is moderated by early and late
adolescent age groups. It is hypothesized that the moderation will
show differences in the pattern of self-regulation, metacognition,
and self-efficacy in predicting achievement goals across high school
(early adolescence) and college (late adolescence) students.

10

Method
Research Design
The study utilized a cross-sectional research design where two
different age groups composed of high school and college adolescents
were studied at the same point in time. These two age groups
(high school and college) were compared on measures of selfregulation, self-efficacy, metacognition, and achievement goal
orientations.
Participants

There were 336 participants ranging from 14 to 21 years old

who are currently studying in three high schools (n =153, mean
age =14.3 years) and two colleges (n =183, mean age =19.0 years).
The high school participants' ages range from 14 to 16 years while
the college participants' ages range from 17 to 21 years. The
participants were selected through purposive sampling. The
selection criteria were matched for both high school and college
samples where both are: (1) attending a private exclusive school
in the National Capital Region; (2) 85 to 95 average grades
(equivalent grades were taken for the college sample); and (3)
similar honor and non-honor student ratio. The majority of high
schools where the questionnaires were administered have a high
percentage of graduates studying in the selected colleges of the
study. These criteria were used to ensure the equivalence in the
characteristics of both the high school and college samples.
MeasuteS

Self-Regulated Learning Interview Schedule (SRLIS). The

instrument was constructed by Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons
(1986) and has eight open-ended questions. Each participant rated
their answers to the questions in terms of how frequently they
used the strategy. The interview measures eight self-regulation
strategies that include self-evaluation, organizing and
transforming, goal-setting and planning, seeking information,
keeping records and monitoring, environmental structuring, selfconsequences, and rehearsing and memorizing. Six different
learning contexts were described to each student: in classroom
situations, when studying at home, when completing writing
assignments, when completing mathematics assignments, when

11

preparing for and taking tests, and when poorly motivated to

complete homework. The measure has undergone construct
validation specifically convergent validity of the SRLIS scale and
standardized measures of students' achievement. Principalcomponents analysis was performed followed by an oblique factor
rotation. The correlation between rotated Factors I and II was .57;
between rotated Factors I and III, it was .43; and between rotated
Factors II and III, it was .36.

Academic Self-efficacy. The self-efficacy scale, constructed by

Chemers, Hu, and Garcia (20011, was composed of eight items with
a 7-point Likert scale where respondents agreed with statements
reflecting confidence in their ability to perform well academically.
The internal consistency of the items has an alpha coefficient of
.81 in Chemers, Hu and Garcia (20011. The internal consistency
of the eight items in the present study using Cronbach's alpha is
.93.
Metacoqnitiue Performance Assessment (MPA). The MPA was
constructed by Magno (20051 to measure a domain specific
metacognition in the context of mathematics problem solving. The
items measure specific metacognitive skills that include
declarative knowledge, conditional knowledge, procedural
knowledge, prediction, planning, evaluation of learning, and
monitoring. Cronbach's alpha is .39 which indicates moderate
consistency of the items. The internal consistency of the scale
was recomputed using the data on the present study and a
Cronbach's alpha of.49 was obtained. Parallel forms reliability was
conducted where the total scores of the metacognitive performance
assessment and the metacognitive skills by Panaoura and
Philippou yielded a correlation coefficient of r = .71. Confirmatory
Factor Analysis (CFAI was conducted where all the factors were
significant components of the construct metacognition. The
unstandardized parameter estimates for the CFA for each
dimension are 2419.55, 308.74, 299.88, 1913.22, 1701.68, 1884.40,
and 1476.87, respectively.
Goal Orientation. A Goal orientation measure created by Zweig
and Webster (20041 was used. The scale draws on learning and
performance orientation items from the general goal orientation
scale created by Button et al. (19961. adapting performance
avoidance orientation items from the situation-specific goal
orientation scale created by Elliot and Church (19971. It measures

12

three areas on achievement goal orientation that includes mastery

goal, performance goal, and performance-avoidance goal. The
resulting measure is comprised of 21 items, with three scales,
each containing seven items. Internal consistency reliabilities
for the three scales were: learning orientation (a = .85),
performance approach orientation (a = .82), and performance
avoidance orientation (a = .69). Test-retest reliability coefficients
for the goal orientation scale at Time 1 and Time 2 were as follows:
learning orientation (r = .73), performance approach orientation
(r = .84), performance avoidance orientation (r = .78). The testretest reliabilities suggest that goal orientation is stable over time.
Procedure

Students from three different private high schools and two

colleges in the metropolitan Manila area were requested to answer
a series of questionnaires. Informed consent was obtained from
the high school and college respondents who were willing to
participate in the study. The respondents were monitored while
answering the instruments in case questions would arise. After
answering, the students were thanked and debriefed about the
purpose of the study.
DataAnalysis

The inventories for each respondent were scored by summating

the scores of the items. For the self-regulation interview, separate
scores were obtained for each use of strategy. For self-efficacy and
me~acognition, global unidimensional scores were obtained.
The mean scores of the high school and college samples on
each scale were then compared using the t-test for two independent
samples. The relationship of self-regulation, metacognition, and
self-efficacy with the three factors of achievement goals were also
established using Pearson r.
The Hierarchical Multiple Regression analysis with forward
step was used to determine whether the components of selfregulation, self-efficacy, and metacognition significantly predict
each scale of the achievement goals. The early and late adolescent
groups were coded as categorical variables (high school = "1" and
college = "2") that were used to moderate self-regulation,
metacognition, and self-efficacy in predicting each of the three

13

achievement goals. In the regression model, the age group codes

were also entered as predictors and were multiplied with the scores
of the predictor factors. If the age group is significant, then the
predictors increase achievement goals for one age group (see
Frazier, Tix, & Barron, 2004).

Results
The data from the study were categorized for the high school
and college samples and they were compared on the components
of self-regulation, self-efficacy, metacognition, and the three
achievement goal orientations: mastery goal, performance goal,
and avoidance. In the first set of analysis as shown in Table 1, the
means were compared for both samples using the t-test for two
independent samples.
Table 1. Comparison of High School and College Samples
_.--

High School

~----

___Colle-se_

SO

Self-evaluation

4.22

1.49

153

4.80

1.38

183

3.70

Organizing

3.99

1.82

150

5.36

1.43

183

7.70

Goal setting

4.28

1.54

153

5.01

1.28

183

4.74

Seeking information

3.92

1.45

153

4.68

1.27

183

5.16

n
SO.._------_

Keeping record

4.19

1.35

153

4.87

1.16

183

4.99'

Environmental structuring

4.12

1.26

153

4.64

1.20

183

3.82

Self-consequencing

4.14

1.37

153

5.05

1.19

183

6.49

Rehearsing

4.21

5.17

1.38

183

5.28

183

6.11'

1.47

149

18.9

5.18

153

18.8

Performance Approach

104.23

18.64

153

45.33

27.69

Performance Avoidance

33.09

6.41

153

33.17

6.64

183

0.11

Mastery Goal

39.25

6.36

153

39.84

5.61

183

0.89

Self-efficacy

33.39

10.46

153

28.74

6.38

183

-5.00"

Metacognition

-------

-0.09

183 -22.41

Note. High school sample is early adolescence, college sample is late adolescence,
df

= 334

p < .001

The two age groups significantly differ on all self-regulation

subscales, self-efficacy, and performance approach (p < .001). The

14

college sample significantly scored higher in all self-regulation

subscales than the high school sample. Self-efficacy and
performance approach is significantly higher for the high school
sample. There was no significant difference for mastery and
avoidant goal orientations.
Zero order correlations were conducted for the high school and
college samples to determine the relationship of the three
achievement goal orientations to the factors of self-regulation,
self-efficacy, and metacognition. Table 2 shows that performance
approach is significantly correlated with all the subscales of the
self-regulation as well as for self-efficacy and metacognition,
p < .05. All subscales of self-regulation are negatively related with
performance approach. Self-efficacy and metacognition increases
with performance approach. For performance avoidance, only
organizing and metacognition are significant. Metacognition is
negatively related with performance avoidance. For mastery goal,
all the self-regulation subscales and self-efficacy are significantly
related with mastery goal with a positive magnitude, p < .05.
Table 2. Zero Order Correlations for the High School and College Samples
Performance
Approach

Performance
Avoidance

Mastery
Goal

Self-evaluation

-.24**

.07

.15**

Organizing

-.45**

.12**

.17**

Goal setting

-.28**

.11

.18**

Seeking information

-.32**

.02

.14**

Keeping record

-.30**

-.00

.16**

Environmental structuring

-.22**

.07

.21**

Self-consequencing

-.39**

.03

.21**

Rehearsing

-.40**

.04

.16**

Self-efficacy

.37**

-.07

Metacognition

.11-

-.11**

.12**
-.03

-p<.01

Hierarchical Multiple Regression analysis with forward step

(reported in Table 3) showed that in predicting performance
approach, the level (high school and college), interaction of level
and self-efficacy, self-efficacy, and organizing are the significant

15

predictors. The regression was a good fit (R2 adj = 76.89%1, but the
overall relationship was significant as indicated by F (4, 3251 =
270.4, P < .01. With the other factors held constant, performance
goal is related with level, interaction of level and self-efficacy, selfefficacy and organizing, decreasing by 2.03, increased of 1.5,
decrease of .90, and .15 for every extra point respectively. The effect
of these predictors is found to be significant, P < .05.
Table 3. Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Performance Approach

B
Level (high school and college)

SEB

AR

-2.03*

.11

-154.07

0.78

0.61

Self-efficacy X Level

1.50*

.12

3.37

0.83

0.08

Self-efficacy

-.90*

.09

-3.91

0.87

0.07

Organizing

-.15*

.03

-3.17

0.88

---- -

0.01
--~-

*p < .05

Since the interaction of self-efficacy and level is found to be

significant, this shows that high school students (decrease in level]
with high self-efficacy decrease their performance approach. But
college students with low self-efficacy increase their performance
approach.
The most important predictor of performance orientation is level
with a multiple correlation of R = .78**. The interaction of level
and self-efficacy increases the combined effects to R = .83, the
addition of self-efficacy in the model increases R to .87, and
inclusion of organizing increases the R to .88.
Another hierarchical multiple regression model was conducted
to predict performance avoidance using the same predictors (see
Table 41. Here, organizing is the only sole predictor of performance
avoidance. The regression was rather a poor fit (R2 adj = 1.04%1,
but the overall relationship was significant as indicated by
F (1,3281 = 4.47, P < .01. With the other factors held constant,
performance avoidance is related with organizing, increasing by
0.12 for every extra point using this self-regulation strategy. The
effect of this predictor is found to be significant, t (3281 = 2.11 with
P< .05.

16
Table 4. Hierarchical Regression Analysis for variables Predicting Performance Avoidance

Organizing

SEa

.12"

.05

.43

Note. R=.12, R2=.01

p<.05

For the next hierarchical regression model (Table 5), mastery

goal was used as the criterion with the same predictors.
Table 5. Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Mastery Goal

SEa

/',.R

Self-con sequencing

.13

.07

.58

0.21

0.04

Self-efficacy

.34"

.06

.23

0.32

0.05

Organizing

.19"

.08

.64

0.35

0.02

Environmental structuring

.14"

.07

.70

0.37

0.01

'p> .05

In predicting mastery goal, self-efficacy, orgaruzing, and

environmental structuring are the significant predictors. The
regression was rather a poor fit (R2 adj = 12.27%), but the overall
relationship was significant as indicated by F (4, 325) ,;, 12.50, P <
.05. With the other factors held constant, mastery goal is related
with self-efficacy, organizing, and environmental structuring,
increasing by .34, .19, and .14 for every extra point respectively.
The effect of these predictors is found to be significant, P < .05.
The age level of the participants did not moderate the prediction of
mastery goal.
When self-consequencing was entered as a predictor of mastery
goal the overall multiple correlation produced is .21 ** which is
significant. The inclusion of self-efficacy increases the R by .10,
organizing increases R by .12, and environmental structuring
increases R by .13.

Discussion
The results in this study showed how achievement-related
behaviors such as self-regulation, self-efficacy, and metacognition

17

are related to achievement goal orientations that include avoidance

orientations, performance, and mastery goal. The prediction of
performance orientation was moderated between high school and
college students but not for avoidance and mastery goals. The
achievement goal orientation of high school and college students
is stable for mastery and avoidant goals, but performance approach
is higher for the high school sample. The prediction of mastery
and avoidance were not moderated by level and were stable across
the two levels. On the other hand, all self-regulation components
are higher for the college students. But self-efficacy is lower for
the college sample.
Thus, changes that occurred for achievement goals across early
and late adolescents were observed. Mastery and avoidant goals
remained consistent from early to late adolescence while
performance orientation tended to change. This indicates that
achievement goals such as mastery and avoidant goals are adopted
for longer periods of time than performance orientation (Zweig &
Webster, 2004). The stability of mastery and avoidance across early
to late adolescence contributes to the social cognitive aspect of
development.
In this study, self-regulation is adopted more by students with
mastery orientation. Cognitive development also brings about more
consistent cognitive control as reflected in the use of more selfregulation strategies (Blakemore, 2006; Flavell, 1992; Klune &
Sweeney, 2004).
The adoption of greater self-regulation strategies in the college
sample and the presence of more self-regulation predictors for
mastery goal are explained in the change of school environment.
Tertiary education presents various modes of learning that are
not limited to the classroom set-up common in primary and
secondary education. This follows Vygotsky's theory that individuals
change in a changing environment (Bjorklund, 2000). College is a
big turning point for adolescents; now they can immerse themselves
in a context that provides more autonomy to choose and make
decisions for themselves, enabling them to use more cognitive
strategies where success is better predicted (Eccles & Midgley,
1989).
Developmental changes in self-efficacy also predicted
performance goals. Self-efficacy increases performance goals in
high school but decreases performance goals in college. These

18

findings show that confidence in one's ability for a younger age

group leads to the adoption of insufficient goals in learning. The
higher self-efficacy exhibited by the high school sample is attributed
to setting higher goals that are not achievable which then
characterizes performance orientation. This shows that younger
adolescents overestimate goals and lack the foresight to set
achievable goals (see also Shanahan & Flaherty, 2001). Self-efficacy
works better for college students. The college students' confidence
in their own ability decreases the likelihood of adopting a
performance orientation goal.
The inability of young adolescents to estimate achievable goals
is brought along by their ineffective cognitive strategies (Carnegie
Council on Adolescent Development, 1989). Academic and nonacademic outcomes during the early adolescent period represent
the beginning of a general deterioration in academic performance,
motivation, self-perceptions of ability, and relationships with peers
and teachers. In a developmental perspective, the stage of early
adolescence is characterized by having a feel in last place when it
comes to their position in the adolescents' pantheon of influence
and admiration (Hamman & Hendricks, 2005). Furthermore, in
early adolescence it is normal to appear unsettled because of the
active exploring of possibilities for self-definition (Papalia, Feldman,
& Olds, 2004). In the Philippine setting the underachievement of
high school students may be evident in the results of the Third
International Mathematics and Science Survey (1999) where the
Philippines ranked second to the last. Considerable efforts are now
being done in the other parts of the globe to raise students'
achievement in high school as demonstrated in different studies
(Leath, 1995; Bottoms & Faegin, 1997; Bottoms, 2000).

19

References
Ablard, K. E., & Lipschultz, R. E. (1998). Self-regulated learning in
high-achieving students: Relations to advanced reasoning,
achievement goals, and gender. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 90, 94-104.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of
behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Socialfoundations ofthought and action: A social
cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise ofcontrol. NY: Freeman.
Barron, K., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2003). Revisiting the benefits of
performance-approach goals in the college classroom: Exploring
the role of goals in advanced college courses. International
Journal ofEducational Research, 35,357-374.
Bjorklund, D. F. (2000). Children's thinking: Deuelopmenial function
and individual differences. NY: Wadsworth.
Blakemore, S., & Suparna, C. (2006). Development of the adolescent
brain: implications for executive function and social cognition.
Journal ofChild Psychology & Psychiatry, 47, 296-312.
Blakey, E., & Spencer, S. (1990). Developing metacognition. ERaC
Digest, ED327218.
Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turninq
points: Preparing American youthfor the 21 st century. Washington,
DC: Author.
Bong, M. (2004). Academic motivation in self-efficacy, task value,
achievement goal orientations, and attributional beliefs. The
Journal ofEducational Research, 97,287-295.
Bottoms, G., & Feagin, C. (1997). The 1996 high schools that work
assessment: Science good news, bad news and actions. SRE8,
4, 1-14.
Bottoms, G. (2000). Putting lessons learned to work: Improving the
achievement of vocational students. SREB, 40, 2-6.
Chemers, M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B. (2001). Academic self-efficacy
and first year college student performance and adjustment.
Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1, 55-64.
Chu, B. (2001). Student's help-seeking attitudes, self-efficacy beliefs,
academic achievement and teacher characteristics: A correlational
study. Unpublished master's thesis: DLSU Manila, Philippines.
Cintura, A. M. F., Okol, J. P. F., & Ong, P. G. R. (2001). Influence of
parenting styles on self-efficacy of high school students.
Unpublished undergraduate thesis: DLSU Manila, Philippines.

20

Colquitt, J. A., & Simmering, M. J. (1998). Conscientiousness, goal

orientation and motivation to learn during the learning process:
A longitudinal study. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 83, 654-665.
Dembo, M. H., & Eaton, M. J. (2000). Self-regulation of academic
learning in middle-level schools. The Elementary School Journal,
100,473-481.
Dornbusch, S. (2000). Transition from adolescence: A discussion
of seven papers. Journal ofAdolescent Research, 15, 173-177.
Dosoete, A., Roeyers, H., & Buysse, A. (2001). Metacognition and
mathematical problem solving in grade 3. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 34, 435-449.
Dweck, C. S. 11986). Motivational processes affecting learning.
American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.
Dweck, C., & Leggett, E. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to
motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.
Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage-environment fit:
Developmentally appropriate classrooms for early adolescents.
In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education:
Vol. 3. Goals and cognitions (pp.139-186). NY: Academic Press.
Elliot, A. J. (1998). Integrating the "classic" and "contemporary"
approaches to achievement motivation: A hierarchical model
of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Advances
in Motivation and Achievement, 10, 143-179.
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (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 ofEducational Psychology, 91, 549-563.
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1996). The expert learner: strategic,
self-regulated, and reflective. Instructional Science, 24, 1-24.
Fisher, S. L., & Ford, J. K. (1998). Differential effects of learner
effort and goal orientation on two learning outcomes. Personnel
Psychology, 51,397-420
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Socialcognition(2nded.) NY: McGraw Hill.
Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development
of metacognition. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 21-29). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Flavell, J. H. (1992). Cognitive development: Past, present, and
future. Developmental Psychology, 28, 998-1005.

21

Fisher, S. L., & Ford, J. K. (19981. Differential effects of learner

effort and goal orientation on two learning outcomes. Personnel
Psychology, 51,397-420.
Ford, J. K., Smith, E. M., Weissbein, D. A., Gully, S. M., & Salas. E.
(19981. Relationships of goal orientation, metacognitive ability
and practice strategies with learning outcomes and transfer.
Journal ofApplied Psychology, 83, 218-233.
Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator
and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal
ofCounseling Psychology, 51,115-134.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Prenice, K., Burch, M., Hamlett, C. L., Owen,
R, & Schroeter, K. (20031. Enhancing third grade students'
mathematical problem solving with self regulated learning
strategies. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 95, 306-315.
Hamman, D., & Hendricks, C. B. (2005). The role of the generations
in identity.formation: Erikson speaks to teacher's of
adolescents. The Clearing House, 79, 72-76.
Hom, C., Bruning, R, Schraw, G., Curry, E., & Katkanan, C. (19931.
Paths to success in the college classroom. Contemporary
EducationalPsychology, 18,464-478.
Hsieh, P., Sullivan, J.R, & Guerra, N. S. (20071. A closer look at
college students: Self-efficacy and goal orientation. The Journal
ofSecondary Gifted Education, 18, 454-480.
Jinks, J., & Morgan V. (19991. Children's perceived academic selfefficacy: An inventory scale. Teacher Journals, 72, 224-230.
Joo, Y., Bong, M., & Choi, H. (20001. Self-efficacy for self-regulated
learning, academic self-efficacy, and Internet self-efficacy in
Web-based instruction. Educational Technology, Research and
Development, 48, 5-18
Kluwe, R H. (19821. Cognitive knowledge and execution control:
Metacognition. In D. R. Griffm (Ed.), Animal mind - human mind
(pp. 201-224). NY: Springer-Verlag.
Leath, A. (1995). Education report reflects gains in science and
math achievement. FYI The American Institute ofPhysics Bulletin
ofScience Policy News, 121,23.
Lopez, D.F., Little, T. D., Oettingen, G., & Baltes, P. B. (1998). Selfregulation and school performance: Is there optimal level of
action-control? Journal ofExperimental Child PsychiJlogy, 70, 5475.
Magno, C. (2005). The role ofmetacognitiue regulation and learning
approach on achievement and its effect on academic self-efficacy.
Psychological Association of the Philippines Conference, Hotel
Supreme, Magsaysay Ave. Baguio City

22
Narciss, S. (20041. The impact of informative tutoring feedback
and self efficacy on motivation and achievement in concept
learning. Experimental Psychology, 51,214-228.
Papalia, D.E., Olds, S.W., & Feldman, R.D. (20041. Human development
(9th ed.]. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Phillips, J.M., & Gully, S.M. (19971. Role of orientation, ability, need
for achievement, and locus of control in the self-efficacy and
goal-setting process. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 82, 792-802.
Pintrich, P.R., & DeGroot, E.V. (19901. Motivational and selfregulated learning components of classroom academic
performance. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 82, 33-40.
Ridley, D. S., Schuilts, P. A., Glanz, R. S., & Weinstein, C. E. (19921
Self-regulated learning: The interactive influences of metacognitive awareness and goals setting. Journal of Experimental
Education, 60, 293-306.
Rock, M. L. (20051. Use of strategic self-monitoring to enhance
academic engagement, productivity, and accuracy of students
with and without exceptionalities. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 7, 3-18.
Schunk, D. H., & Cox, P. D. (19861. Strategy training and
attributional feedback with learning disabled students. Journal
ofEducational Psychology, 78,201-209.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1994). Self-regulation oflearning
and performance: Issues and educational applications. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B.J. (1998). Self-regulated learning:
From teaching to self-reflective practice. NY: Guilford Press.
Shanahan, M. J., & Flaherty, B. P. (2001). Dynamic patterns of
time use in adolescence. Child Development, 72, 385-401.
Shim, S., & Ryan, A. (2005). Changes in self-efficacy, challenge
avoidance, and intrinsic value in response to grades: The role
of achievement goals. The Journal of Experimental Education,
73,333-340.
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (19941. Assessing metacognitive
awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460-475.
Sideridis, G. D. (2006). Achievement goal orientations, "oughts,"
and self-regulation in students with and without learning
disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29, 3-19.
Smith, K.A., Sheppard, S. D., Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (2005).
Pedagogies of engagement: Classroom-based practices. Journal
ofEngineering Education, 94,87-101.

23

Third International Mathematics and Science Study. (200 I). Science

and mathematics benchmarking reports 1999. International
Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
Winn, W., & Snyder, D. (1996). Cognitive perspectives in psychology.
In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational
communication and technology, 112-142. NY: Simon & Schuster
MacMillan.
Wintre, M., North, C., & Sugar, L. (2000). Psychologists' response to
criticisms about research based on undergraduate participants:
A developmental perspective. Canadian Psychology, 42,216-225.
Wolters, C. A. (1998). Self-regulated learning and college students'
regulation of motivation. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 90,
224-235.
Wolters, C. A. (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory using
goal structures and goal orientations to predict student's
motivation, cognition and achievement. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 96,236-250.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation
of a strategy model of student self-regulated learning. Journal
ofEducational Psychology, 80, 284-290.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social
cognitive perspective. In M. Boekarts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner
(Eds.), Self-regulation: Theory, Research and Applications
(pp.13-39). Orlando, Florida:Academic.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a
structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated
learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23,
614-628.
Zimmerman, B.J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory
influences on writing course attainment. American Educational
Research Journal, 31, 845-862.
Authors' Note
This study was presented at the Korean Association of
Psychological and Social Issues on October 28-29 at Inha University
in Incheon, Korea. Special thanks to Pauline Lee and Chastine
Torres for administering the questionnaires. Further correspondence can be addressed to Carlo Magno at the Counseling and
Educational Psychology Department, De La Salle University, 2401
Taft Ave. Manila (magnoC@dlsu.edu.ph) or Jennifer Ann Lajom at
the Psychology Department, De La Salle University
(lajomj@dlsu.edu.ph).