RUNNING HEAD: Self-regulation, Self-efficacy, Metacognition and Achievement Goal

A Cross-Sectional Study of High school and College Adolescents in their use of

Self-regulation, Self-efficacy, Metacognition, and Achievement Goals

Carlo Magno

Jennifer Ann Lajom

De La Salle University–Manila
 Self-regulation, Self-efficacy, Metacognition and Achievement Goal 2

Abstract

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, self-efficacy questionnaire,

metacognitive performance assessment, and a goal orientation measure. In the regression

model, the high school (early adolescence) and college students (late adolescence) were

moderated in the prediction of achievement goals. It was found in the study that college

students are higher in all self-regulation subscales (p<.05). Mastery goal is significantly related

with all self-regulation subscales and self-efficacy. The contribution of self-efficacy on

performance orientation is significantly moderated by high school (early adolescence) and

college (late adolescents) students. This means that high school students’ with high self-efficacy

increases their performance orientation. Self-efficacy, and self-regulation strategies such as

self-consequencing, organizing, and environmental structuring are important characteristics of

mastery oriented students.

Key words: self-regulation, self-efficacy, metacognition, achievement goals

 Self-regulation, Self-efficacy, Metacognition and Achievement Goal 3

A Cross-Sectional Study of High School and College Adolescents in their use of

Self-regulation, Self-efficacy, Metacognition, and Achievement Goals

It is notable that Filipino young adolescents in their high school years perform differently

with college students. This is not only brought about by differences in cognitive functioning due

to maturation of age but also to the kind of social environment the adolescent is in. The

cognitive processes that adolescents use and adopt 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 and the later in college.

According to Papalia, Olds, and Feldman (2004), adolescence is a stage where an

individual goes through 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 adolescents. For instance, early adolescence

from 11 to 14 years old poses opportunities for growth in cognitive and social competence,

autonomy, and self-esteem. However, this period may be precarious as some young

adolescents may have difficulties in coping with many changes and may need help in dealing

with them.

It was explained by Wintre, North, and Sugar (2000) that the sub stages of late

adolescence are identified from post secondary education. Early and middle adolescents

belonging in a high school setting have a different academic and social situation as compared to

the college context. The social learning theory of Bandura (1986) explains the adolescent

learners’ cognition is influence 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 self-generated behaviors are framed in this
 Self-regulation, Self-efficacy, Metacognition and Achievement Goal 4

study as self-regulation strategies (Zimmerman, 2000), metacognition (Flavell, 1987), and self-

efficacy (Bandura, 1986).

It is evidenced mostly in previous studies that the use of cognitive strategies such as

self-regulation and metacognition leads 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 self-efficacy are studied as they predict

achievement goals. Age sublevels in adolescents is used to moderate the relationship between

self-regulation, 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 model in

previous studies was not differentiated across different age levels using a cross-sectional

design.

Previous studies usually show that achievement goals are used as predictors of

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 them to set goals. In the present study, achievement goal orientation is

used as an outcome variable of self-regulation, self-efficacy, and metacognition. Early

investigations on self-regulation, self-efficacy, and metacognition showed that such variables

are intercorrelated (Horn, Bruning, Schraw, Curry, & Katkanan, 1993; Joo, Bong, & Choi, 2000;

Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1988; Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994; Zimmerman & Martinez-

Pons, 1990) but they were not studied in together to predict achievement goal as an outcome.
 Self-regulation, Self-efficacy, Metacognition and Achievement Goal 5

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.

Predictors of Achievement Goals

The present study uses self-regulation, metacognition, and self-efficacy 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 mastery oriented (a component of

achievement goal) on different tasks (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). There are numerous studies

indicating that high levels of self-efficacy are characteristics of individuals with mastery goals

and low self-efficacy for avoidant-oriented individual (i. e. Joo, Bong, & Choi, 2000; Shim &

Ryan, 2005). This shows that the way individuals use strategies in learning can predict the kind

of achievement goals that they have.

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

thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that are oriented to attaining goals. It was clarified that it is not

a mental ability or skill but rather a process where learners transform their mental abilities into

academic skills. Zimmerman (2002) explains self-regulation in 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 with 14 strategies

that includes self-evaluation, organizing and transforming, goal-setting and planning, seeking
 Self-regulation, Self-efficacy, Metacognition and Achievement Goal 6

information, keeping records and monitoring, environmental structuring, self-consequences, and

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. A students' level of learning has 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 the

study of 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. In the same way the

study of Ablard and Lipschultz (1998) demonstrated that self-regulation strategies in learning is

used by students with high achievement adopting mastery goal. Students in the sample who

were high achievers performing at or above the 97th percentile on an achievement test tend to

be have mastery goals than performance and avoidance. Another study by Wolters (1998)

about self-regulated learning and motivation among college students revealed that 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 level of learning goal

orientation and use of cognitive strategies have established positive correlation with course

grades. Fuchs, Fuchs, Prentice, Burch, Hamlett, Owen, and Schroeter (2003) likewise
 Self-regulation, Self-efficacy, Metacognition and Achievement Goal 7

discussed that self-regulated behavior has been associated with the likelihood of other self-

regulated processes as well as academic learning.

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 enable learners to adjust consequently to changeable problem solving tasks,

demands and contexts (Dosoete, Roeyers, & Buysse, 2001). Metacognition also has an

established connection with achievement performance of students which have been

demonstrated in many studies (Blakey, 1990; Kluwe, 1982; Magno, 2005; 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),

findings showed that 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. It was also

revealed that individuals identified with higher mastery orientation 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. In a study

conducted by Rock (2005), she used a more specific metacognitive skill which is strategic self-

monitoring and investigated its effect on academic engagement, non-targeted problem behavior,

productivity, and accuracy of students. The results indicate that the use of specific

metacognitive strategy decreased students’ disengagement on a task and academic productivity

and accuracy improved. This study shows that individuals who use metacognitive strategies are

far on being avoidant in their learning. However, in the study by Elliot, McGregor, and Gable

(1999), metacognition was used as a mediating variable between achievement goals and
 Self-regulation, Self-efficacy, Metacognition and Achievement Goal 8

performance. This study provides a close link to establish metacognition as a predictor of

achievement goals.

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 much is needed

to be explored with its connection to achievement goal orientation. There is evidence that self-

efficacy is related with 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 related to self-set goals and higher performance. The study by Bong (2004) assessed

academic self-efficacy, task value, ability, effort attributions with mastery, performance-

approach, and performance-avoidance achievement-goal orientations in reference to English,

Korean, mathematics, and general school learning among 389 Korean high school girls. They

found that on the average, attributional beliefs appeared least "generalizable," across subject

areas followed by task value and mastery achievement-goal orientations. Academic self-efficacy

beliefs were correlated moderately, whereas performance-approach and performance-

avoidance achievement-goal orientations demonstrated strong correlation across different

contexts. Motivational beliefs in each of the specific school subjects were more strongly
 Self-regulation, Self-efficacy, Metacognition and Achievement Goal 9

correlated with motivational beliefs in general school learning than with beliefs in other areas of

subject matter.

Another study by Shim and Ryan (2005) again investigated the relationship between

achievement goals and changes in students' self-efficacy and other factors in response

to grades a short-term 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 self-efficacy when students received low grades but not high

grades. The studies presented by Bong (2004) and Shim and Ryan (2005) show the

relationship between self-efficacy and achievement goals although they were just part of

the main process in studies and the relationship was not explicit. 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. It also reflects 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 Goal Orientation

Goal orientation is emerging as a useful construct for understanding how people

develop, attain or demonstrate competence in learning and performance. Although it is

 Self-regulation, Self-efficacy, Metacognition and Achievement Goal 10

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 a cognitive framework that encompasses 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 bi-dimensional variable. For instance, Colquitt, and Simmering (1998) stated

that dispositional goal orientation is a stable trait that assumes one of two forms: a) a learning

orientation (mastery goal) in which the focus is on increasing competence, and b) a

performance orientation in which demonstrating competence by meeting normative-based

standards is critical.

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 performance-avoidance 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 context. 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 self-efficacy are related with

achievement goals show that all these factors were studied separately (Ablard, Karen,
 Self-regulation, Self-efficacy, Metacognition and Achievement Goal 11

Lipschultz, & Rachelle, 1998; Bong, 2004; Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999; Shim & Ryan, 2005;

Sideridis,2006; Rock, 2005; Wolters, 2004). Some studies only showed their relationship without

posing a clear direction of predicting achievement goals. The aim of the study is to determine

which factor among self-regulation, metacognition, and self-efficacy best predicts achievement

goals. These three factors predicting achievement goals is explained in the social cognitive

theory where individuals make use of learning strategies as in the case of 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 upon

using such learning strategies. The social cognitive theory focuses on how people make sense

of the actions of other people and themselves (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). The theory indicates that

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

It is considered that there is a marked cognitive development from early to late

adolescent due to brain growth (Blakemore & Suprana, 2006). The present study determines

the difference in pattern of predicting achievement goals from early top late adolescence. Given

the cognitive changes, there are implications on changes in executive functions and social

cognition during puberty (early) and late adolescence. Given the process of psychological

maturity, the academic performance also vary 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 many others, it
 Self-regulation, Self-efficacy, Metacognition and Achievement Goal 12

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, self-perceptions 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 the middle level

and high school. The study by Turner, Trotter, and Lapan (2006) found the weaknesses of early

adolescents in their study. They used a sample of early adolescents with a mean age of 13.1

where they tested the Integrative Contextual Model of Career Development by investigating the

multivariate effects of 6 interrelated career development skills (career exploration, person-

environment fit, goal setting, social/prosocial/work readiness, self-regulated learning, and the

utilization of social support) on 6 intermediate vocational outcomes (academic achievement,

self-efficacy expectations, positive self-attributions, vocational interests, vocational identity, and

proactivity) among Native American adolescents. Results showed that individual and shared

variance among the skills positively predicted 79% of variance in 5 of the 6 outcomes. Results

suggest that each of the skills contributes substantially and in combination to Native American

adolescents' career development. This study shows that it is possible to frame factors that

would project early adolescents career development using self-regulation and achievement

goals. But the study was not able to attain significance for the actual achievement gains across

the different subjects areas. It was even recommended in the study that career counselors who

work with Native American young people should specifically attend to teaching them each of the

skills identified in the study such as self-efficacy and self-regulation.

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
 Self-regulation, Self-efficacy, Metacognition and Achievement Goal 13

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.

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 self-regulation, 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=19.05) and two colleges (n=183, Mean age=14.3). The

high school participants age range from 14 to 16 while the college participants’ age range is

from 17 to 21. The participants were selected through purposive sampling. The selection criteria

were matched for both high school and college sample where both are: (1) attending a private

exclusive school in NCR, (2) 85 to 95 average grades (equivalent grades were taken for the

college sample), and (3) same in honor and non-honor student ratio. The majority of high

schools where the questionnaires were administered have 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 sample.

Materials

Self-Regulated Learning Interview Schedule (SRLIS). The instrument was constructed

by Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1986) that used eight open-ended questions. Each
 Self-regulation, Self-efficacy, Metacognition and Achievement Goal 14

participant would rate their answers to the questions in terms of how frequent they use the

strategy. The interview measures eight self-regulation strategies that includes self-evaluation,

organizing and transforming, goal-setting and planning, seeking information, keeping records

and monitoring, environmental structuring, self-consequences, 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 preparing for and taking tests, and when poorly motivated to complete

homework. The measure has gone construct validation specifically convergent validity of the

SRLIS scale and standardized measures of students' achievement. Principal-components

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 was constructed by Chemers, Hu, and

Garcia (2001) composed of eight items. It has a 7-point Likert scale where respondents agree

with statements reflecting confidence in their ability to perform well academically. The internal

consistency of the items has an alpha coefficient of .81 in the study of Chemers, Hu and Garcia

(2001).The internal consistency of the eight items in the present study using Cronbach’s alpha

is .93.

Metacogntive Performance Assessment (MPA). The MPA was constructed by Magno

(2005) to measure a domain specific metacognition in the context of math problem solving. The

items measure specific metacognitive skills that include declarative knowledge, conditional

knowledge, procedural knowledge, prediction, planning, evaluation of learning, and monitoring.

The cronbach’s alpha is .39 which indicates a 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 of reliability was conducted where the total scores of

the metacognitive performance assessment and the metacognitive skills by Panaoura and
 Self-regulation, Self-efficacy, Metacognition and Achievement Goal 15

Philippou yields a correlation coefficient of r=.71. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) 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 (2004) was

used. The scale draws on learning and performance orientation items from the general goal

orientation scale created by Button et al. (1996), adapting performance avoidance orientation

items from the situation-specific goal orientation scale created by Elliot and Church (1997). It

measures three areas on achievement goal orientation that includes mastery goal, performance

goal, and performance-avoidance goal. The resulting measure is comprised 21 items, with three

scales, each containing seven items. Internal consistency reliabilities for the three scales were:

learning orientation (α = .85), performance approach orientation (α = .82), and performance

avoidance orientation (α = .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 test-retest 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 participants who are willing to answer were instructed to answer the four

instruments. 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.

 Self-regulation, Self-efficacy, Metacognition and Achievement Goal 16

Data Analysis

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

the self-efficacy and metacognition, global unidimensional scores were obtained.

The mean scores of the high school and college sample 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 self-regulation, 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 was used to moderate self-

regulation, metacognition, and self-efficacy in predicting each of the three achievement goals. In

the regression model, the age group codes were also entered as a predictor and were multiplied

with the scores of the predictor factors. If the age group is significant, then the predictors

increases 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 sample and

they are 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.

 Self-regulation, Self-efficacy, Metacognition and Achievement Goal 17

Table 1

Comparison of High School and College

High School College

M SD n M SD n t
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***
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 1.47 149 5.17 1.38 183 6.11***
Metacognition 18.9 5.18 153 18.8 5.28 183 -0.09
Performance Approach 104.23 18.64 153 45.33 27.69 183 -22.41***
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***
Note. High school sample is early adolescence, college sample is late adolescence, df=334
***p<.001

The comparison of means between the high school and the college sample shows that

they significantly differ on all self-regulation subscales, self-efficacy, and performance approach

(p<.001). The 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.
 Self-regulation, Self-efficacy, Metacognition and Achievement Goal 18

Zero order correlations were conducted for the high school and college sample to

determine the relationship of the three achievement goal orientations to the factors of self-

regulation, self-efficacy, and metacognition.

Table 2

Zero Order Correlation for the High School and College Sample

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 .12**
Metacognition .11** -.11** -.03
**p<.01

The correlations for the high school and college sample 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.
 Self-regulation, Self-efficacy, Metacognition and Achievement Goal 19

Hierarchical Multiple Regression analysis with forward step was conduced to determine

whether the components of self-regulation (self-evaluation, organizing and transforming, goal-

setting and planning, seeking information, keeping records and monitoring, environmental

structuring, self-consequences, and rehearsing and memorizing), self-efficacy, and

metacognition when combined predict each of the achievement goals. The high school and

college sample was moderated in predicting each goal orientation.

Table 3

Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Performance Approach

B SE B β R ∆R
Level (high school and college) -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

In predicting performance approach, the level (high school and college), interaction of

level and self-efficacy, self-efficacy, and organizing are the significant predictors. The regression

was a good fit (R2 adj=76.89%), but the overall relationship was significant as indicated by F(4,

325)=270.4, p<.01. With the other factors held constant, performance goal is related with level,

interaction of level and self-efficacy, self-efficacy 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.

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-esteem increase their performance approach.

The most important predictor of performance orientation is level with a multiple

correlation of R=.77**. The interaction of level and self-efficacy increases the combined effects
 Self-regulation, Self-efficacy, Metacognition and Achievement Goal 20

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.

Table 4

Hierarchical Regression Analysis for variables Predicting Performance Avoidance

B SE B β
Organizing .12* .05 .43
2
Note. R=.12, R =.01
*p<.05

Organizing is the only sole predictor of performance avoidance. The regression was

rather a poor fit (R2 adj=1.04%), but the overall relationship was significant as indicated by

F(1,328)=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(328)=2.11 with p < .05.

For the next hierarchical regression model, mastery goal was used as the criterion with

the same predictors.

Table 5

Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Mastery Goal

B SE B β R ∆R
Self-consequencing .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, organizing, and environmental structuring are

the significant predictors. The regression was rather a poor fit (R2 adj=12.27%), but the overall
 Self-regulation, Self-efficacy, Metacognition and Achievement Goal 21

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 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 are related with 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.

In comparing the mean scores of the high school and college students, it showed that

the achievement goal orientation of high school and college students is stable for mastery and

avoidant goals. Performance approach is higher for the high school sample. These findings are

consistent in the hierarchical regression result where the prediction of performance approach is

moderated by level (high school and college). 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.

The present study showed the changes that occurred for achievement goals across

early and late adolescents. In the adolescents’ development, mastery and avoidant goals tend

to remain stable from early to late adolescents while performance orientation tend to change.

This indicates that extreme achievement goals such as mastery and avoidant goals are adopted
 Self-regulation, Self-efficacy, Metacognition and Achievement Goal 22

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.

It was also found in the study that self-regulation are adopted more by students with

mastery orientation. Higher age levels during the adolescent stage makes individuals attain

complete cognitive skills. The cognitive development brings about more consistent cognitive

control which is reflected with the use of more self-regulation strategies (Blakemore, 2006;

Flavell, 1992; Klune & Sweeney, 2004).

The adoption of higher self-regulation strategies for the college sample and having more

self-regulation predictors for mastery goal is explained in the change of school environment.

Post-secondary education presents various modes of learning that are not limited to a

classroom set-up, which are common among primary and secondary education. This follows

Vygotsky’s theory that individuals change in a changing environment (Bjorklund, 2000). As an

adolescent enters tertiary education, it is a big turning point where he is immersed in a context

that provides more autonomy to choose and make decisions for himself enabling them to use

more cognitive strategies where success is better predicted (Eccles & Midgley, 1989).

The result in the study provides evidence of developmental change on self-efficacy

predicting performance goals. Self-efficacy increases performance goal orientation in high

school but in the college sample, self-efficacy decreases with performance goals. These

findings show that confidence in one’s ability for a younger age group leads to the adoption of

insufficient goals in learning. Self-efficacy works better for college students. The college

students’ confidence in their own ability decreases the likelihood of adopting a performance

orientation goal.

Self-efficacy is explained by Shanahan and Flaherty (2001) that one’s efficacy beliefs

and time spent in academic involvement influences ambitious educational and occupational

plans. The higher self-efficacy exhibited by the high school sample is attributed to setting higher
 Self-regulation, Self-efficacy, Metacognition and Achievement Goal 23

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.

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 non-academic outcomes during the early adolescents’ 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

adolescents' pantheon of influence and admiration (Hamman & Hendricks, 2005). Furthermore,

in early adolescence it is normal at this period 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 are evident in the results of the Third

International Mathematics and Science Survey (1999) where the Philippines having tested high

school students rank second to the last. The scores from other countries did not show

significant differences from each other. Considerable efforts are 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).

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). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

 Self-regulation, Self-efficacy, Metacognition and Achievement Goal 24

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: 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 of Educational Research, 35, 357-374.

Bjorklund, D.F. (2000). Children’s thinking: Developmental function and individual differences.

Wadsworth Publishing.

Blakemore, S, & Suparna, C (2006). Development of the adolescent brain: implications for

executive function and social cognition. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 47, 296-

312.

Blakey, E. & Spencer, S. (1990). Developing metacognition. ERIC Digest, ED327218.

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turning points: Preparing American

youth for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Author.

Bong, M. (2004). Academic motivation in self-efficacy, task value, achievement goal

orientations, and attributional beliefs. The Journal of Educational Research, 97, 287-295.

Bottoms, G. & Feagin, C. (1997). The 1996 high schools that work assessment: Science good

news, bad news and actions. SREB, 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 of Educational 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 highschool students. Unpublished undergraduate thesis: DLSU Manila,

Philippines.
 Self-regulation, Self-efficacy, Metacognition and Achievement Goal 25

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

to learn during the learning process: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied 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 of

Adolescent 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. (1986). 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). New York: 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 of Educational Psychology, 91, 549-

563.

Ertmer, P. A. & Newby, T. J. (1996). The expert learner: strategic, self-regulated, and reflective.

Instructional Science, 24, 1-24.

 Self-regulation, Self-efficacy, Metacognition and Achievement Goal 26

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). Social cognition (2nd ed.) New York: Mc-Graw Hill.

Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. E.

Weinert y 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.

Fisher, S. L., & Ford, J. K. (1998). 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. (1998). Relationships of goal

orientation, metacognitive ability and practice strategies with learning outcomes and

transfer. Journal of Applied Psychology,83, 218-233.

Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in

counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 115-134.

Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Prenice, K., Burch, M., Hamlett, C.L., Owen, R., & Schroeter, K. (2003).

Enhancing third grade students’ mathematical problem solving with self regulated learning

strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 306-315.

Hamman, D. & Hendricks, C. B. (2005). The role of the generations in identity formation:

Erikson speaks to teachers of adolescents. The Clearing House, 79, 72-76.

Horn, C., Bruning, R., Schraw, G., Curry, E., & Katkanan, C. (1993). Paths to success in the

college classroom. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 464-478.

Hsieh, P., Sullivan, J.R., & Guerra, N.S. (2007). A closer look at college students: Self-efficacy

and goal orientation. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 18, 454-480.

Jinks, J. & Morgan V. (1999). Children’s perceived academic self-efficacy: An inventory scale.

Teacher Journals, 72, 224-230.

 Self-regulation, Self-efficacy, Metacognition and Achievement Goal 27

Joo, Y., Bong, M., & Choi, H. (2000). 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. (1982). Cognitive knowledge and execution control: Metacognition. In D. R. Griffin

(ed.), Animal mind – human mind (pp. 201-224). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Leath, A. (1995). Education report reflects gains in science and math achievement. FYI The

American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News, 121, 23.

Lopez, D.F., Little, T. D., Oettingen, G., & Baltes, P. B. (1998). Self-regulation and school

performance: Is there optimal level of action-control? Journal of Experimental Child

Psychology, 70, 54-75.

Magno, C. (2005). The role of metacognitive 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

Narciss, S. (2004). 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. (2004). Human development (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill

Publishing.

Phillips, J.M., & Gully, S.M. (1997). Role of orientation, ability, need for achievement, and locus

of control in the self-efficacy and goal-setting process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,

792-802.

Pintrich, P.R., & DeGroot, E.V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of

classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.

Ridley, D. S., Schuilts, P. A., Glanz, R. S., & Weinstein, C. E. (1992). Self-regulated learning:

the interactive influences of metacognitive awareness and goals setting. Journal of

Experimental Education, 60, 293-306.

 Self-regulation, Self-efficacy, Metacognition and Achievement Goal 28

Rock, M. L. (2005). 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. (1986). Strategy training and attributional feedback with learning

disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology,78, 201-209.

Schunk, D.H., & Zimmerman, B.J. (1994). Self-regulation of learning 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. New York: 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. (1994). 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 of Engineering Education, 94, 87-101.

Third International Mathematics and Science Study. (2001). Science and mathematics

benchmarking reports 1999. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational

Achievement.

Turner, S. L., Trotter, M. J., Lapan, R. T. Czajka, K. A. (2006). Vocational skills and outcomes

among native American adolescents: A test of the integrative contextual model of career

development. The Career Development Quarterly, 54, 216-227.

 Self-regulation, Self-efficacy, Metacognition and Achievement Goal 29

Winn, W. & Snyder, D. (1996). Cognitive perspectives in psychology. In D. H. Jonassen, ed.

Handbook of research for educational communication and technology, 112-142. New York:

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 of Educational 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 of Educational 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.
 Self-regulation, Self-efficacy, Metacognition and Achievement Goal 30

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).