Theme: Prior Knowledge Component #120: Teacher facilitates student thinking about what they know about a desired goal (measure progress) Theme: Positive relationships and peer collaboration Component #23: Teacher structures class so that peers regularly plan together how to refine strategies for reaching goals (How will I get there?) Component #174: Teacher provides opportunities for peers to collaborate on goal revising (Where am I going?) These components are examined together because a review of broad goal setting literature is necessary to frame more sparsely researched peer goal setting. Strength: High/Low – The role of goal setting in teaching and learning is well developed theoretically and has considerable empirical support; however the research on peer goal setting and evaluation is very sparse. Feasibility: Medium to High-Goal setting appears relatively easy to implement, and peer participation could be included. However, building a classroom culture focused on learning goals rather than performance goals may be difficult in the current accountability context. In 1989, Sadler (1989) stated that formative assessment closed the instructional loop by providing information about the gap between current performance and learning goals (Sadler, 1989). This focus elevated goal formation and understanding as important elements of formative assessment practice. His definition emphasized student participation in understanding the gap between performance and goals, a practice of self-assessment that should lead to students engaging in actions to improve their performance. Likewise, in Black’s (2004) study, teachers found a primary element of self-assessment consisted of getting students to identify goals for their work. This review will first briefly outline the theoretical literature regarding the role of goal-setting in learning, then elaborate on the empirical support for both peer- and self- goal setting. Much of the support for goal setting in formative assessment practice derives from theory on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Ideally, FA practice instills an internal learning orientation in students who feel an increasing sense of mastery and competence as they reach their goals (Shepard, 2005). In contrast, students motivated externally by performance goals may be more likely to give up if they encounter difficulty because they are constantly comparing their ability to others. When trying does not lead to success, students may give up rather than experience defeat (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). Newman and Schwager (1995) present strong evidence in favor of learning vs. performance goals. In an experimental study, they assigned third and sixth graders to academic conditions characterized by either learning or performance goals. Students assigned to a learning goals context demonstrated more checking for correct answers and less “maladaptive questioning.” Perhaps most importantly, low achievers in the performance goal condition solved significantly fewer problems. Other studies show similar findings, demonstrating that a mastery or learning goal orientation predicted effective learning strategies,

positive effort orientation, self-efficacy, and positive attitude (Ames & Archer, 1988; Shih & Alexander, 2000). Moreover, there is considerable support for the contention that learning goal orientation supports equity in educational contexts, while performance goal orientations may lead to a downward spiral in achievement for minority and low-performing students (Covington, 2000). Thus, goal setting outcomes depend on the type of goals; those focused on learning rather than performance tend to result in better outcomes (Newman & Schwager, 1995). In addition, goals need to be clear, appropriate in the level of challenge, and specific (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Locke & Latham 1984; Schunk, 2003). Specificity in goals allows students and teachers to understand success criteria, and thus make needed adjustments in learning and instruction (Hattie & Timperley, 2007), as well as allowing students and teachers to believe goals are attainable (Schunk, 1983). However, specificity may lead to tunnel vision, and thus should be moderated by having long and short-term goals (Seijts & Latham, 2001) An accumulation of empirical evidence lends credence to the theory underlying the use of goals in the learning process. Schunk (2003) reviews the early literature, reporting that children who participate in goal setting conferences experienced greater achievement (Gaa, 1979), goal setting resulted in better self-evaluation of performance amongst students with disabilities (Tollefson et al, 1984), and learning goal orientation resulted in better reading comprehension amongst low performing students (Schunk and Rice, 1989). Later studies demonstrated additional associations between children setting learning goals and positive academic outcomes (Covington, 2000). The literature also examines the role of student participation in the setting of goals. Although an early meta-analysis of the literature found participation in goal development to have mixed effect (Tubbs, 1986), later studies provided evidence that student involvement in goal planning or evaluation may result in greater mastery or learning orientation (Ames, 1992). Available evidence suggests that successful student participation in goal development relies on a combination of direct instruction (Schunk, 2003), experience with documenting their own progress (McNamara and Deane (1995), and discussion and debate on goal formation with a teacher (Bowe, 2003). For example, Bowe (2005) found that self-assessment may be best facilitated by student involvement in the formation of criteria for judgment, following discussion, debate, and negotiation. However, Schunk (2003) argues that direct instruction on goal setting may be necessary to help students develop skills in this arena. In addition, teachers may need to nurture a common commitment to goals in order for students to share the goal structure. Peer goal development may be one effective way to build a common set of goals. Research regarding peer goal setting in the field of education is sparse, however group goal setting has enjoyed some attention in the field of organizational psychology. Findings from experimental research in this area of literature indicate that group goal setting is predictive of increased productivity, especially if it incorporates group level feedback (Pritchard, et al., 1988). Specifically, personal goal compatibility with group goals may help group performance, and group goal setting may work best if it emerges from the bottom level participants but is approved by higher level participants (Pritchard, et al 1988). Peer goal setting may also facilitate sharing of information. Some research on the role of group goals in collaborative learning demonstrates the salience of goal setting. For example, Parrenas and Parrenas (1993) demonstrated that cooperative groups only help achievement if they have group goals and individual accountability. Clearly more research is needed in this area in terms of peer goal setting in an educational context.

Many of the constructs reviewed across these and other components are likely best implemented together. As Schunk (2003) argues, an ideal environment is characterized by goal setting aligned with a learning or mastery orientation, teacher modelling of cognitive processes, scaffolded group work in which peers can model for each other, and effective peer and teacher feedback.





References Ames C. 1992. Classrooms: goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology. 84:261–71 Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: students' learning strategies and motivational processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 260-267. Black, P. (2004). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 8-21. Bowe, B. (2005). Assessing problem-based learning: A case study of a physics problem-based learning course. In T. Barrett, I. Mac Labhrainn & H. Fallon (Eds.), Handbook of enquiry & problem based learning : Galway. Covington, M. V. (2000). Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: An integrative review. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 171-200. Gaa, J. P. (1979). The effects of individual goal-setting conferences on academic achievement and modification of locus of control orientation. Psychology in the Schools, 16, 591-597. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal setting theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), 265. McNamara, M.J. & Deane, D. (1995) Self-assessmen activities: toward language autonomy in language learning, Tesol, 5, pp. 17-21. Newman, R. S., & Schwager, M. T. (1995). Students' help seeking during problem solving: effects of grade, goal, and prior achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 352. Parrenas, C. & Parrenas, F. (1993). Cooperative learning, multicultural functioning, and student achievement, In L. Malave (Ed.), Annual conference journal: proceedings of the national association for bilingual education conference, Washington D.C., 1993-00-00, 181-189. Pritchard, R. D., Jones, S. D., Roth, P. L., Stuebing, K. K., & Ekeberg, S. E. (1988). Efffects of group feedback, goal setting, and incentives on organizational productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 337-358. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119-144.

Seijts, G.H., & Latham, G.P. (2001). The effect of learning, outcome, and proximal goals on a moderately complex task. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 291–307. Schunk, D. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal setting, and self-evaluation. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 159-172. Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1989). Learning goals and children’s reading comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 21, 279-293. Shepard, L. A. (2005). Formative assessment: Caveat emptor. Paper presented at the ETS Invitational Conference. The future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning, New York. Shih, S.-S., & Alexander, J. (2000). Interacting effects of goal setting and self- or otherreferenced feedback on children's development of self-efficacy and cognitive skill within the Taiwanese classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 536-543. Tollefson, N., Tracy, D. B., Johnsen, E. P., Farmer, A. W., & Buenning, M. (1984). Goal setting and personal responsibility training for LD adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 21, 224-233. Tubbs, M. E. (1986). Goal setting: A meta-analytic examination of the empirical evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 474-483. White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (2000). Metacognitive facilitation: An approach to making scientific inquiry accessible to all. In J. Minstrell & E. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 33-370). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Good Literature Review (Adequate Research) Number of sources q ≤2

q3 Different types of sources (i.e. journal, publication, peer-reviewed)

q ≤2

q3 Word Count

q ≤ 499 words

q500+ words

Adequate level of evidence indicating effectiveness of component (Relevancy) Feasibility of Implementation qNo evidence

qMinimal evidence

qStrong evidence

qOverwhelming evidence

Applied to a Variety of Subject Areas qNo specific subject areas qNo evidence

q1subject area

q 2 subject areas

Increases student achievement qMinimal evidence qStrong evidence

q3+subject areas

qOverwhelming evidence

Helps teacher to understand students’ needs qNo evidence

qMinimal evidence

qStrong evidence

qOverwhelming evidence