Learning Environ Res (2008) 11:131–151

DOI 10.1007/s10984-008-9042-7

ORIGINAL PAPER

A model of metacognition, achievement goal orientation,

learning style and self-efficacy

Savia A. Coutinho Æ George Neuman

Received: 11 September 2006 / Accepted: 4 July 2007 / Published online: 6 May 2008
Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract Structural equation modelling was used to test a model integrating achievement
goal orientation, learning style, self-efficacy and metacognition into a single framework
that explained and predicted variation in performance. Self-efficacy was the strongest
predictor of performance. Metacognition was a weak predictor of performance. Deep
processing had a weak, negative relationship with performance. Mastery-approach goals
were related to deep-processing and surface-processing learning styles. Mastery-approach
and performance-approach goals were positive predictors of self-efficacy. Mastery-
avoidance and performance-avoidance goals were related to self-efficacy.

Keywords Learning
Metacognition
Self-efficacy

Introduction

Previous research on achievement goal orientation, learning style, self-efficacy and

metacognition suggests that these variables are closely tied to academic performance (as
measured by GPA) and can be taught to students to improve their academic performance.
However, individual researchers typically have focused on the relationship of a few of
these variables to performance and have not examined a single framework incorporating
the theoretical models of all these variables. Research in this area tends to focus primarily
on children in school and not on college students or adults. The integration of different
theoretical models into a single framework could provide a deeper understanding of the
relationship between all of these variables and help to better explain how college students
learn.
The goal of the present study was to integrate isolated lines of research and theory
related to achievement goal orientation, learning style, self-efficacy and metacognition into
a unifying model that could explain and predict performance. The fit of the model was
assessed using structural equation modelling. The hypothesised model is shown in Fig. 1.

S. A. Coutinho (&)
G. Neuman

Northern Illinois University, Normal Rd., Dekalb, IL 60115, USA
e-mail: [email protected]

123
132 Learning Environ Res (2008) 11:131–151

Deep Surface
Processing Processing Disorganisation

Mastery
Approach
Metacognition

Mastery
Avoidance

High School
Performance GPA
Approach

Performance

College
GPA
Performance
Avoidance

Self-
Efficacy

Fig. 1 Hypothesised model

Such a model has not been tested previously in the literature. Theories of goal orientation,
learning style, self-efficacy and metacognition are elaborated in the subsequent sections of
this article and are followed by a unifying theory integrating these components into a single
model. Subsequent sections describe the present study and its implications.

Metacognition

The first line of research is Flavell’s (1979) metacognition, which is described as

‘‘knowledge and cognition about cognitive phenomena’’ (p. 906). Metacognition refers to
higher-order mental processes involved in learning that include making plans for learning,
using appropriate skills and strategies to solve a problem, making estimates of performance
and calibrating the extent of learning (Dunslosky and Thiede 1998). Researchers distin-
guish between two main components of metacognition: metacognitive knowledge and
metacognitive regulation (Brown 1987; Flavell 1987; Jacobs and Paris 1987). Metacog-
nitive knowledge refers to knowledge of cognition and metacognitive regulation refers to
activities that control one’s thinking and learning (Schraw and Dennison 1994).
One line of metacognition research has shown that metacognition is an important
predictor of academic performance (Dunning et al. 2003; Dunslosky and Thiede 1998;
Kruger and Dunning 1999; Thiede et al. 2003). Students able to effectively distinguish
information that they know and do not know are more likely to review and relearn new
information rather than to focus on learning information that they have already mastered. A
second line of metacognitive research has revealed that metacognitive training, even if
administered for a short time, can improve performance considerably (e.g. Hodge et al.
1992; Kohler 2002; Leasure 1997; Nietfeld and Schraw 2002; Talbot 1997; Thiede et al.
2003). Students provided with metacognitive training, in addition to task-based training,
are likely to improve their performance scores much more than students who do not receive
metacognitive training. Even more encouraging is that academically weak students are
found to benefit from metacognitive training (White and Frederiksen 1998).

123
Learning Environ Res (2008) 11:131–151 133

In summary, students with good metacognition can demonstrate good academic per-
formance relative to students with poor metacognition skills. Students with poor
metacognition can benefit from metacognitive training for improving their metacognition
and academic performance.

Achievement goal orientation

The second line of research is achievement goal orientation, which refers to the types of
results that students pursue when attempting to attain learning outcomes (Dweck 1989;
Dweck and Leggett 1988; Heyman and Dweck 1992). Researchers have proposed the two
contrasting achievement goals of mastery goals and performance goals (Ames and Archer
1988; Button et al. 1996; Heyman and Dweck 1992). People with mastery goals believe
that effort leads to improvement in performance. They are focused on enhancing their
knowledge and understanding of an area and on developing competence. They seek
challenging tasks and strive under difficult situations. When faced with failure, they
respond with ‘‘solution-oriented instructions, as well as sustained or increased positive
affect and sustained or improved performance’’ (Elliot and Dweck 1988, p. 5). People with
performance goals strive to demonstrate their competence and avoid negative judgements
of their competence (Dweck and Leggett 1988; Elliot and Dweck 1988). They evade
challenges and obstacles, and prefer simple tasks where success is guaranteed. When
confronted with challenging tasks, they withdraw due to the risk of failure, demonstrate
negative affect, make negative ability attributions and report decreased interest in the task.
The most recent model of goal orientation is a 2 9 2 achievement goal framework
proposing four goal orientations: mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance, performance-
approach, and performance-avoidance (Elliot 1999; Elliot and McGregor 2001; Pintrich
2000). Students with a mastery-approach goal work to attain positive results such as
acquiring knowledge and skills, whereas students with a mastery-avoidance goal avoid
negative outcomes such as losing skills or becoming incompetent. Therefore, while a
student with a mastery-approach goal would strive to learn as much as possible, a student
with a mastery-avoidance goal would avoid misunderstanding the course material or avoid
forgetting what has been learned already. Students with performance-approach goals aim
to demonstrate competence to others. Students with a performance-avoidance goal focus
on avoiding demonstrations of incompetence. Research suggests that goal orientations can
exist independently of each other, allowing students to adopt multiple goals simulta-
neously, such as an orientation towards mastery of information and striving to perform well
on a test (Meece and Holt 1993; Nolen 1988; Pintrich and Garcia 1991).
Researchers have shown a positive relationship between mastery goals and metacog-
nition (Ames and Archer 1988; Nolen and Haladyna 1990a; Schmidt and Ford 2003;
Wolters et al. 1996). Students with mastery goals devote more effort to monitoring their
learning, seek evaluative feedback (Butler 1993; VandeWalle et al. 1999) and persist
longer when faced with negative feedback (VandeWalle et al. 1999). While research shows
that performance-avoidance goals are negatively related to metacognition (Schmidt and
Ford 2003), the relationship between performance-approach goals and metacognition is
vague. Some studies have found a weak positive relationship between metacognition and
performance-approach goals (Ames and Archer 1988; Archer 1994; Meece et al. 1988;
Nolen and Haladyna 1990a), whereas other studies cite a negative relationship (Wolters
1998) or no relationship (Ford et al. 1998). Students who avoid demonstrations of
incompetence are less likely to use metacognitive strategies that foster a deep

123
134 Learning Environ Res (2008) 11:131–151

understanding of material. However, students with performance-approach goals could need

to adopt some metacognitive strategies to demonstrate competence, though these strategies
can be geared towards maximising results rather than achieving deep comprehension of the
material.
Mastery goals show a strong relationship to performance relative to performance goals
because students adopting mastery goals have strong performance whereas no relationship
is found between performance goals and performance (e.g. Butler 1993; Button et al. 1996;
Elliot and McGregor 1999; Phillips and Gully 1997; VandeWalle et al. 1999). The long-
term implications of goal orientation for performance have been shown by Elliot and
McGregor (1999) who found a positive relationship between grades on an introductory
psychology examination and performance-approach goals, and a weak relationship
between mastery goals and performance. With regard to long-term retention, students with
mastery goals performed better on an end-of-semester pop-quiz relative to students with
performance goals and performance-approach goals were unrelated to grades.
Few studies have investigated the mediation effects of metacognition in the goal ori-
entation—performance relationship. Ames and Archer (1988) found that metacognition
mediated the relationship between mastery goals and performance but not for performance
goals and performance. Similarly, Bouffard et al. (1995) discovered that, relative to stu-
dents with performance goals, students using mastery goals reported increased use of
metacognitive strategies and performed better, suggesting some mediation effects of
metacognition. Kanfer (1990a, b, 1992) also found similar results and suggested that
people with mastery goals are predisposed to using self-regulatory strategies in pursuit of
their mastery orientation. People with performance goals, however, are less predisposed to
use self-regulation strategies because they do not aim to deeply understand but are more
concerned with performance, and so do not engage in self-regulatory tactics for learning.

Learning style

Another theory explaining variance in performance comes from learning styles theory.
Entwistle (1988) distinguished between three types of learning styles that people can
adopt—deep processing, surface processing, and disorganisation. Deep processing, con-
sidered to be the most successful approach to learning, has been labelled elaborative
processing or critical thinking (Weinstein and Mayer 1986). People using a deep-pro-
cessing learning style challenge the authenticity of new information and focus on the
content of the information in pursuit of comprehension. In contrast, people using a surface-
processing learning style fail to understand the true nature of the information. They adopt
repetitive rehearsal and rote memorisation of information in order to learn and focus on
verbatim recall of texts and facts. The last type of learning style is disorganisation, which
refers to the learner’s failure to process information due to inability to establish or maintain
a structured, organised and orderly approach to learning. Such learners might display poor
time management and a lack of planning. Craik and Lockhart (1972) and Craik and
Tulving (1975) outlined a theoretical framework for studying based on the levels of pro-
cessing. The basic paradigm of their approach is that what people remember depends to a
large extent on the way in which the information is encoded or processed during learning.
Information processed at a deep level of processing will be retained better and for longer
than information processed at a surface level of processing.
With regard to the relationship between goal orientation and learning styles, numerous
studies have shown that mastery goals are positive predictors of deep processing and

123
Learning Environ Res (2008) 11:131–151 135

performance goals are positive predictors of surface processing (Elliot et al. 1999; Greene
and Miller 1996; Nolen and Haladyna 1990a, b, c; Pintrich and Schrauben 1992; Schraw
et al. 1995). Students with mastery goals are more likely to believe that effort is the basis
of successful learning and, therefore, they use a deep-processing strategy approach to
learning (Ames 1992; Elliot and Dweck 1988; Pintrich and DeGroot 1990). Students with
performance goals, however, are not concerned with learning information but seek to
demonstrate their ability or avoid displays of incompetence. However, some studies have
shown no relationship between performance goals and surface processing (Greene and
Miller 1996; Pintrich and Garcia 1991; Pintrich et al. 1993). Elliot et al. (1999) showed
that students with performance-avoidance goals had surface-processing and a disorganised
learning style.
With regard to performance, researchers have shown a positive relationship between
deep processing and performance, and no relationship or a negative relationship between
surface processing and performance (e.g. Lee and Anderson 1993; Meece et al. 1988;
Nolen and Haladyna 1990a, b, c). However, Bandalos et al. (2003) discovered an unex-
pected negative relationship between deep processing and achievement. Bandalos et al.
suggest that deep processing is not related to immediate performance outcomes which were
assessed in their study but is related to long-term achievement outcomes.
Learning styles can mediate the goal orientation—achievement relationship (Bandalos
et al. 2003; Greene and Miller 1996). Bandalos et al. (2003) examined a model of goal
orientation, deep processing, test anxiety and achievement, but failed to include surface
processing in their model. They found a significant but weak mediation effect of deep
processing for the mastery goal and achievement relationship. The mediation was weak
because of a negative relationship between deep processing and achievement. Greene and
Miller (1996) found that goal orientation was related to learning style, which, in turn,
influenced achievement outcomes. Students with mastery goals were more likely to use
deep-processing strategies and had better achievement outcomes. Students with performance
goals used a surface-processing approach to learning and had poor achievement outcomes.
Numerous researchers have shown that learning styles are also related to metacognition
(Biggs 1985; Bouffard et al. 1995; Marton and Sa’ljo’ 1997; Schoenfeld 1983; Snow 1989;
Vermetten et al. 2001; Vermunt 1998). Students with a deep-processing style use meta-
cognitive strategies to pursue meaning and integration of information whereas students
who are surface processors of information do not use metacognitive strategies to achieve
learning outcomes. Schoenfeld explained that novice learners are likely to select the first
strategy that comes to mind and stick to it regardless of the outcomes whereas good
learners could think about the task, select a strategy, evaluate and analyse the strategy, and
alter or abandon the strategy. There are no studies testing mediation effects of metacog-
nition in the relationship between learning style and performance.

Self-efficacy

A final line of research is self-efficacy, which refers to a person’s perceived ability to attain
a desired outcome (Bandura 1977, 1994, 1997). People with a strong sense of self-efficacy
tend to focus their energy on analysing and resolving problems, whereas people with weak
self-efficacy become preoccupied with evaluation concerns, doubt their skills and abilities,
and anticipate failure before investing effort in problem-solving (Bandura and Wood 1989;
Meichenbaum 1977; Sarason 1975). These negative beliefs heighten stress, undermine the
effective use of cognitive strategies, and eventually result in failure.

123
136 Learning Environ Res (2008) 11:131–151

Success depends on optimistic self-efficacy beliefs in one’s abilities to achieve desired

outcomes (Bandura 1993). Moderately overconfident and optimistic students tend to be the
best performing students (Pajares and Kranzler 1995; Pajares and Miller 1994). Students
work harder on tasks at which they judge themselves to be competent rather than tasks for
which they lack confidence to complete successfully (Mayer 1998). People use their past
performance to infer their level of ability and extent of success on a task (Gist and Mitchell
1992). Those who receive positive feedback are more likely to believe that they have the
capabilities to perform a task. Conversely, those who receive poor performance assess-
ments will have low efficacy beliefs regarding the task. Self-efficacy is a good predictor of
academic performance (GPA) and higher education plans (Lalonde 1980; Multon et al.
1991). Metacognitive knowledge and training also influence self-efficacy (Butler 1993;
Schmidt and Ford 2003).
Self-efficacy is related to goal orientation independent of ability (Lock and Latham
1990; Mitchell et al. 1994). A substantial body of research has shown that people with
mastery goals have higher self-efficacy and better task performance than people with
performance goals (Locke et al. 1984; Wood et al. 1990). The link between performance
goals and self-efficacy is less clear, with some research citing a positive relationship
between performance goals and self-efficacy (Ford et al. 1998) and other research
reporting a negative relationship between performance goals and self-efficacy (Phillips and
Gully 1997). There seems to be some consensus about a negative relationship between
performance avoidance and self-efficacy (Middleton and Midgley 1997; Pajares et al.
2000). Mastery goals are clearly related to self-efficacy but performance goals can be
either related or unrelated to self-efficacy. The discrepant findings in the relationship
between performance goals and self-efficacy might be explained by the nature of the task
used in the studies. Studies using simple tasks with few cognitive demands in which
success is assured usually reveal a positive relationship between performance goals and
self-efficacy. However, studies that utilise challenging, demanding or difficult tasks usually
yield negative relationships between performance goals and self-efficacy. People with
performance goals seek to demonstrate competence or avoid demonstrations of incom-
petence and, therefore, adjust their level of self-efficacy based on their perceptions of
whether these goals can be met.
Self-efficacy is a mediator in the goal orientation–performance relationship because
students with performance goals expend effort on the task only if they perceive that they
have the necessary skills to successfully complete the task (Bandalos et al. 2003; Bandura
1993; Dweck and Leggett 1988). If students believe they cannot complete the task suc-
cessfully, then they withdraw from the task rather than risk failure. Students with mastery
goals were less likely to associate failure with a lack of ability and so are less likely to lose
confidence in their abilities in instances of failure. The relationship between self-efficacy
and performance is partially mediated by metacognition as people with strong self-efficacy
were more likely to use metacognitive strategies when working on a task and performed
better than those with weak self-efficacy (e.g. Bouffard-Bouchard et al. 1991; Kanfer and
Ackerman 1989; Pintrich and DeGroot 1990).
Self-efficacy is also a mediator in the relationship between learning style and perfor-
mance as students who believed they are capable of performing tasks tended to use more
cognitive engagement tools, persist longer, and perform better than students who lacked
confidence in their ability (Pintrich and DeGroot 1990; Pintrich and Garcia 1991). Curda
(1997) found that learning style mediated the self-efficacy and achievement relationship
for deep processing but not for surface processing. Bandalos et al. (2003) hypothesised but
found no mediation for deep processing in the relationship between self-efficacy and

123
Learning Environ Res (2008) 11:131–151 137

performance for students learning statistics, perhaps because students who are new to
subject material might need time to experiment with learning strategies. The implications
of these findings are that students with strong self-efficacy show good task performance,
have good metacognition and use deep-processing learning styles relative to students with
weak self-efficacy. The latter students demonstrate poor performance, have poor meta-
cognition and could rely on surface-processing approaches to learning.

A unifying theory

The theoretical constructs and research elaborated above are integrated into a unifying
model which can help explain and predict individual differences in learning. The
comprehensive model begins with the goals that students first adopt. Based on the
research described above, we posited that mastery-approach and mastery-avoidance goals
would be related to deep processing (Elliot et al. 1999; Greene and Miller 1996; Nolen
and Haladyna 1990a, b, c; Pintrich and Schrauben 1992; Schraw et al. 1995), perfor-
mance-approach and performance-avoidance goals would be related to surface
processing, and performance-avoidance goals would be related to disorganisation (e.g.
Elliot et al. 1999). Goals were expected to be directly related to self-efficacy because
students with mastery goals generally possess stronger self-efficacy than students with
performance goals (Locke et al. 1984; Wood et al. 1990). Self-efficacy was also pre-
dicted to be related to metacognition as confident students have better metacognition
than students unsure of their capabilities (e.g. Bouffard-Bouchard et al. 1991; Kanfer and
Ackerman 1989; Pintrich and DeGroot 1990). Only mastery goals were expected to be
related to performance because performance goals over time do not show a clear
influence on performance (e.g. Butler 1993; Button et al. 1996; Elliot and McGregor
1999; Phillips and Gully 1997; VandeWalle et al. 1999).
Another outcome that researchers have linked to performance is the learning styles
used by students. Based on research findings, we expected deep processing to be related
to performance (e.g. Lee and Anderson 1993; Meece et al. 1988; Nolen and Haladyna
1990a, b, c). Surface processing and disorganisation might not have an influence on per-
formance over time. Because students with particular learning styles also posses varying
metacognitive skills, with students who use deep processing demonstrating good meta-
cognitive skill usage relative to students with surface-processing or disorganised learning
styles, we expected learning styles to be related to metacognition (Biggs 1985; Bouffard
et al. 1995; Marton and Sa’ljo’ 1997; Schoenfeld 1983; Snow 1989; Vermetten et al. 2001;
Vermunt 1998).
Students typically possess some idea of their capabilities to complete a task or achieve
success in learning. Self-efficacy was predicted to be related to performance because
students with strong self-efficacy are usually successful academic students relative to
students with weak self-efficacy (Lalonde 1980; Multon et al. 1991). Students with
strong self-efficacy also possess better metacognitive skills relative to their weak self-
efficacy counterparts (Butler 1993; Schmidt and Ford 2003) and tend to be deep pro-
cessors of information (Pintrich and DeGroot 1990; Pintrich and Garcia 1991). Finally,
based on a sizeable body of research, metacognition was expected to be related to
performance (Dunning et al. 2003; Dunslosky and Thiede 1998; Kruger and Dunning
1999; Thiede et al. 2003). Students vary in the metacognitive abilities which they
possess and research has shown that students with good metacognition are typically
strong academic performers.

123
138 Learning Environ Res (2008) 11:131–151

Overview of the study

A model of performance shown in Fig. 1 is hypothesised based on the literature reviewed

in the above sections. Most studies did not distinguish between approach and avoidance
aspects for mastery and performance goals. Therefore, similar findings were expected for
approach and avoidance facets of mastery and performance goals. Predictions for per-
formance goals were somewhat difficult due to conflicting research findings. However,
these predictions were based on the majority of the research findings.
Specifically, the following relationships were expected: (1) goal orientation variables
would be correlated with each other; (2) metacognition would be positively related to
performance; (3) mastery-approach and mastery-avoidance goals would be positively
related to performance; (4) mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance and performance-
approach goals would be positively related to metacognition; (5) performance-avoidance
goals would be negatively related to metacognition; (6) mastery-approach and mastery-
avoidance goals would be related to deep processing; (7) performance-approach and
performance-avoidance goals would be related to surface processing; (8) performance
avoidance would be positively related to disorganisation; (9) deep processing would be
positively related to performance; (10) deep processing would be positively related to
metacognition; (11) surface processing and disorganisation would be negatively related to
metacognition; (12) self-efficacy would be positively related to performance; (13) self-
efficacy would be positively related to metacognition; (14) self-efficacy would be posi-
tively related to deep processing; (15) mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance and
performance-approach goals would be positively related to self-efficacy; and (16) per-
formance-avoidance will be negatively related to self-efficacy.

Method

Participants

Participants were 629 undergraduate students (310 women, 316 men and 3 unspecified)
enrolled in an introductory psychology course at Northern Illinois University. Northern
Illinois University is set in a suburban location in the Midwest in the USA. The university
can be described as mid-sized, with about 27,000 full-time students enrolled at the time of
the study. The university offers a wide range of academic programmes, including several
Master’s and PhD programmes. Students either live in the university town or commute
from Chicago and Chicago suburbs. Students participated in this experiment to fulfil class
requirements. Ages ranged from 17 to 40 years (M = 19.22, SD = 1.69).

Procedure

Participants were informed that the purpose of the study was to improve understanding of
the learning process. Participants completed a survey including measures of goal orien-
tation, learning style, self-efficacy and metacognition. These measures were randomly
ordered and combined to create a continuous survey without any headings denoting the
titles of the measures. Participants were instructed to reflect on their classes when
responding to the items. This provided participants with a basis for answering questions
regarding their learning techniques and study habits. Participants completed the survey and
handed it back to the researcher.

123
Learning Environ Res (2008) 11:131–151 139

Materials

Goal orientation

Participants completed the 12-item Achievement Goal Questionnaire developed by Elliot

and McGregor (2001). This is the most recent measure of goal orientation and is based on a
2 9 2 goal orientation framework. The scale has a reported Cronbach alpha coefficient of
0.68 (Elliot and McGregor 2001). The overall alpha for the scale in this study was 0.83.
The alphas for the subscales in this study are reported in Table 1. Students responded to on
a seven-point scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (1), to Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)
and to Strongly Agree (7). Scores on the first three items were summed to obtain a score for
performance approach, scores on the next three items were summed to obtain a score for
performance avoidance and so on. Therefore, each participant had a score for mastery
approach, mastery avoidance, performance approach and performance avoidance.

Learning style

Participants completed the Student Study Strategies scale (Elliot et al. 1999). This scale
comprises 15 items. Participants responded on a seven-point scale ranging from Strongly
Disagree (1), to Neither Agree nor Disagree (4) and to Strongly Agree (7). Scores on the
first five items were summed to obtain a score for deep processing, scores on the next five
items were summed to obtain a score for surface processing, and scores on the final five
items were summed to obtain a score for disorganisation. Each student had a score for deep
processing, surface processing and disorganisation.

Performance

Two indicators of performance used in this study were high school GPA and college GPA.
Participants provided their high school and college GPA and the scales for both GPAs from
memory. Both GPAs were requested because students could be in their first or second
semester in college and, therefore, college GPA might not be a good indicator of perfor-
mance. The GPAs were rescaled to a 4.0 scale using a simple ratio conversion. For
instance, if a person reported a GPA on a five-point GPA scale, this GPA was rescaled to a
4.0 scale by multiplying the GPA by 4.0 and dividing by the original GPA scale.

Self-efficacy

Participants completed the nine-item self-efficacy subscale from the Motivated Strategies
for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ; Pintrich et al. 1993). Participants were instructed to
refer to their introductory psychology class when responding to these items. Participants
responded on a seven-point scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (1), to Neither Agree nor
Disagree (4) and to Strongly Agree (7). Scores were summed to obtain an overall score for
self-efficacy.

Metacognition

Metacognition was assessed using the 52-item Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI;
Schraw and Dennison 1994). Participants responded on a seven-point scale ranging from

123
 140

123
Table 1 Means, standard deviations, reliabilities and correlations for all variables
Variable M SD a Correlation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1 Performance approach 14.75 4.18 0.91 1.0 0.18* 0.31** 0.19** 0.20** 0.22** 0.02 0.43** 0.34** 0.14** 0.12**
2 Performance avoidance 16.45 4.13 0.76 1.00 0.18** 0.38** 0.09** 0.31** 0.21** 0.07 0.18** -0.01 -0.11**
3 Mastery approach 14.10 4.10 0.86 1.00 0.41** 0.48** 0.28** 0.05 0.36** 0.40** -0.03 0.02
4 Mastery avoidance 12.95 4.20 0.84 1.00 0.20** 0.24** 0.41** -0.03 0.17** -0.08* -0.10**
5 Deep processing 20.90 5.30 0.62 1.00 0.09* 0.001 0.34** 0.44** -0.02 -0.01
6 Surface processing 26.48 5.32 0.77 1.00 0.04 0.28** 0.34** -0.02 -0.07
7 Disorganisation 18.38 7.77 0.90 1.00 -0.26** -0.16** -0.02 -0.08
8 Self-efficacy 44.32 8.78 0.90 1.00 0.66** 0.13** 0.24**
9 Metacognitive awareness inventory 251.76 41.38 0.95 1.00 0.07* 0.13**
10 High school grade point average 3.23 0.46 – 1.00 0.35**
11 College grade point average 2.87 0.61 – 1.00
* p \ 0.05, ** p \ 0.01
Learning Environ Res (2008) 11:131–151
Learning Environ Res (2008) 11:131–151 141

Strongly Disagree (1), to Neither Agree nor Disagree (4) and to Strongly Agree (7). Scores
were summed to obtain a composite score for MAI metacognition.

Results

Descriptives and correlations

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics, reliabilities and zero-order correlations for all the
measured variables. Most students were freshman (71.5%) but there were some sopho-
mores (17.2%), juniors (7.2%) and seniors (3.8%) in the sample as well. As expected, the
goal orientation variables of mastery approach, mastery avoidance, performance approach
and performance avoidance significantly correlated with each other. Learning style vari-
ables did not correlate significantly with each other, indicating orthogonality. Relationships
were also seen between the goal-orientation variables and learning-style variables. Mas-
tery-approach and mastery-avoidance goals correlated significantly with deep processing
(r = 0.48, p \ 0.001; r = 0.20, p \ 0.001, respectively). All the goal-orientation variables
correlated significantly with surface processing and performance-avoidance and mastery-
avoidance goals correlated with disorganisation (r = 0.21, p \ 0.001; r = 0.41,
p \ 0.001, respectively).
Self-efficacy correlated significantly with performance approach and mastery approach
(r = 0.43, p \ 0.001; r = 0.36, p \ 0.001, respectively) but not with the avoidance
variables, suggesting that people with avoidance goals (performance-avoidance or mas-
tery-avoidance goals) could lack confidence in their abilities to achieve these goals. Self-
efficacy also had a negative correlation with disorganisation (r = -0.26, p \ 0.001) as
disorganised learners might have low confidence in their skills. Strong correlations were
seen for metacognition with self-efficacy (r = 0.66, p \ 0.001), deep processing
(r = 0.44, p \ 0.001) and mastery approach (r = 0.40, p \ 0.001). Finally, high-school
GPA and college GPA correlated modestly (r = 0.35, p \ 0.001), though a stronger
correlation was expected. One reason for this could be that, because most students were in
their first year of college, they might not have had a chance to establish a consistent GPA.
Also, college coursework might be qualitatively different and more demanding than high-
school coursework and so students might not see college GPAs that are consistent with
their high-school GPAs.

Exploratory factor analysis

An exploratory factor analysis was run to determine whether the different survey items
were loading on the corresponding factors and to ensure that the survey items were not
essentially measuring metacognition. Because students reported their learning style, goal
orientation and self-efficacy, these variables could simply be metacognition and not
learning style, goal orientation and self-efficacy. Therefore, exploratory factor analysis was
run to ensure separation of survey items on the respective factors. Results of the explor-
atory factor analysis showed a total of 10 factors with eigenvalues over 1. All variables
loaded cleanly on appropriate factors with no cross-loadings. The distribution of the items
on the factors provides sufficient confidence that the items are assessing the various factors
and were not loading on a single factor of metacognition.

123
142 Learning Environ Res (2008) 11:131–151

Overall model fit

Structural equation modelling was conducted to assess the fit of the hypothesised hybrid
model using the computer program EQS (Bentler 1995). Maximum Likelihood estimation
was used. The model did not fit the data well as shown by the fit indices in Table 2,
parameter estimates in Fig. 2, and standardised path coefficients and R2 values in Table 3.
The v2 was significant, v2(23) = 221.48, p \ 0.001, most of the fit indices were below
0.90 and the RMSEA was higher than desired. The v2, high RMSEA and low fit indices
suggested a poor fit to the model.
Diagnostic information for the improvement of the model was obtained from the
modification indices. Lagrange Multiplier suggested the addition of links between mastery-
approach and surface processing, and between mastery avoidance and disorganisation.
The link between mastery-approach and surface processing has not been shown in the
literature as research has typically focused on mastery goals as a whole without the

Table 2 Summary of goodness

Statistic Hypothesised Final
of fit statistics for two models
model model

df 23 25
v2 221.48 121.09
CFI 0.87 0.94
AGFI 0.83 0.91
GFI 0.94 0.97
MFI 0.85 0.92
NFI 0.86 0.92
RMSEA 0.10 0.05
Absolute standardised 0.03 0.03
residuals

Deep Surface
Processing Processing Disorganisation

0.39* 0.20*
-0.08*
0.07* 0.18* 0.11*
Mastery
Approach 0.07*
Metacognition
0.12*
0.45* 0.17*
0.37* -0.01*

Mastery 0.06*
Avoidance 0.29*
0.01*
0.21* -0.09*

-0.04*

0.20* -0.09* High School

Performance
0.47* GPA
0.32* Approach

0.19* 0.32* 0.21*

Performance
-0.24*
0.56* College
0.74* GPA
Performance
Avoidance 0.36*
0.34*

0.04*
Self-
Efficacy

Fig. 2 Hypothesised hybrid model with path coefficients

123
Learning Environ Res (2008) 11:131–151 143

Table 3 Standardised path

Path Standardised R2
coefficients and R2 values for
coefficient
original model
To deep processing from 0.28
Self-efficacy 0.21
Mastery approach 0.39
Mastery avoidance 0.07
To surface processing from 0.13
Performance approach 0.17
Performance avoidance 0.30
To disorganisation from 0.04
Performance avoidance 0.20
To self-efficacy from 0.27
Performance approach 0.37
Performance avoidance 0.04
Mastery approach 0.32
Mastery avoidance -0.24
To metacognition from 0.53
Deep processing 0.18
Surface processing 0.12
Disorganisation -0.08
Self-efficacy 0.56
Performance approach -0.01
Performance avoidance 0.06
Mastery approach 0.07
Mastery avoidance 0.12
To high school GPA from 0.22
Performance factor 0.47
To college GPA from 0.55
Performance factor 0.74
To performance factor from 0.12
Deep processing -0.09
Self-efficacy factor 0.34
Metacognition factor 0.01
Mastery approach -0.04
Mastery avoidance -0.09

approach-avoidance distinctions. However, it is theoretically plausible that people seeking

to master information might use a combination of deep and surface-processing learning
styles to maximise learning and some learning environments might be best served by a
combination of deep and surface-processing learning styles. Similarly, the link between
performance approach and disorganisation has not been shown in research. However,
people seeking to avoid losing information could be disorganised in their attempts to do so.
These links were added to the model.
To achieve parsimony, some weak paths were dropped from the model and a new
trimmed model was created. The Wald test suggested dropping four paths: (1) performance

123
144 Learning Environ Res (2008) 11:131–151

approach to metacognition; (2) mastery approach to performance; (3) mastery avoidance to

performance; and (4) performance avoidance to self-efficacy. Conflicting research findings
exist for the relationship between performance approach and metacognition as some
research suggests this relationship but other research suggests no relationship. Dropping
this path supports research studies alternative to the prediction. Research on mastery
approach and performance and mastery avoidance and performance has not considered
more than one mediating variable. Therefore, research has found a relationship between
mastery approach and performance and mastery avoidance and performance. Possibly
these goals are only indirectly related to performance and that their relationship with
performance is fully mediated by other variables such as self-efficacy and learning style.
Such a mediation effect would make the direct path weak or non-significant. Based on this
idea, the paths were dropped. The relationship between performance avoidance and self-
efficacy has been shown in some studies (e.g. Pajares et al. 2000) but not others (e.g. Ford
et al. 1998). Dropping the path from performance avoidance to self-efficacy supports the
alternative prediction.
The final model is shown in Fig. 3, goodness of fit statistics are reported in Table 2, and
standardised path estimates and R2 values are reported in Table 4. The v2 goodness of fit,
v2(25) = 121.09, was significant at (p \ 0.001). However, the sensitivity of the v2 test to
sample size is well known. All fit indices were above 0.90 and the RMSEA was low (0.03).

Description of the final model

Most but not all of the hypothesized paths were statistically significant. Deep processing,
self-efficacy and metacognition were related to performance and accounted for 11% of the
variance in performance. Self-efficacy was a strong predictor of performance whereas

Deep 0.20* Surface Disorganisation

Processing Processing
0.38
*
0.39* 0.07*
0.11* -0.08*
0.11*
0.18
Mastery *
Approach
0.07*
Metacognition
0.12
0.45* *

0.37* -0.12*

Mastery
Avoidance 0.26* 0.06* -0.02*

0.20* 0.21*
0.06
*
High School
Performance 0.45*
GPA
0.32* Approach 0.55
*
0.21* Performance
0.19*
0.32*
0.77* College
-0.23* GPA
Performance 0.37* 0.36*
Avoidance

Self-
Efficacy

Fig. 3 Final hybrid model with path coefficients

123
Learning Environ Res (2008) 11:131–151 145

Table 4 Standardised path

Path Standardised R2
coefficients and R2 values for the
coefficient
final model
To deep processing from 0.28
Self-efficacy 0.21
Mastery approach 0.39
Mastery avoidance 0.07
To surface processing from 0.17
Performance approach 0.11
Performance avoidance 0.27
Mastery approach 0.20
To disorganisation from 0.16
Performance avoidance 0.06
Mastery avoidance 0.38
To self-efficacy from 0.26
Performance approach 0.37
Mastery approach 0.32
Mastery avoidance -0.23
To metacognition from 0.53
Deep processing 0.18
Surface processing 0.12
Disorganisation -0.08
Self-efficacy 0.55
Performance-avoidance 0.06
Mastery approach 0.07
Mastery avoidance 0.12
To high school GPA from 0.20
Performance factor 0.45
To college GPA from 0.53
Performance factor 0.77
To performance factor from 0.11
Deep processing -0.12
Self-efficacy 0.36
Metacognition -0.02

metacognition had a weak relationship with performance. Deep processing had a negative
relationship with performance. Variables predicting self-efficacy were performance
approach, mastery approach and mastery avoidance, with these variables together
accounting for 26% of the variance in self-efficacy. Mastery approach and performance
approach were strong predictors of self-efficacy, and mastery avoidance had an inverse
relationship with self-efficacy.
Self-efficacy, mastery approach and mastery avoidance predicted and accounted for
28% of the variance in deep processing. However, mastery avoidance had a weak rela-
tionship with deep processing. Variables related to surface processing were performance
approach, performance avoidance and mastery approach, accounting for 17% of the var-
iance in surface processing. Mastery avoidance and performance avoidance predicted

123
146 Learning Environ Res (2008) 11:131–151

disorganisation, accounting for 16% of the variance. Finally, variables predicting meta-
cognition were deep processing, surface processing, disorganisation, self-efficacy,
performance avoidance, mastery approach and mastery avoidance, accounting for 53% of
the variance in metacognition. Self-efficacy was the strongest predictor of metacognition,
followed by deep processing, surface processing and mastery avoidance.

Discussion

This article tested a model using structural equation modelling that could explain and
predict variation in performance based on achievement goal orientation, learning style,
self-efficacy and metacognition. A comprehensive model with all these variables has not
been tested previously. Also, models of goal orientation have typically neglected the
approach and avoidance facets of mastery and performance goals. Testing a comprehensive
model with approach and avoidance aspects of mastery and performance goals could help
to explain how these variables are related to each other and could help teachers and
students to devise effective learning strategies.
The strongest predictor of performance was self-efficacy, indicating that students with
confidence in their abilities to perform well experience successes in performance. Meta-
cognition had a weak relationship with performance, which is inconsistent with a large
body of research that has shown the utility of metacognition in task performance. One
possibility is that participants in this study did not have experience with metacognition in
their learning. A second possibility is that performance was assessed by high school GPA
and college GPA, which could be related more to test performance than to critical thinking
and deep comprehension. Metacognition could be necessary for learning, comprehension,
problem solving and critical thinking and not very important for academic performance,
which could require rote memorisation more than metacognition. Also, metacognition
improves with age, with children and adolescents having poor metacognition relative to
adults (Bisanz et al. 1978; Bransford et al. 1999; Chi et al. 1989). Participants could have
little experience with metacognition in their learning, though they might recognise which
skills they should be using and so might have responded accordingly to the MAI.
Regardless, this finding should be explored in future studies.
Deep processing had a negative relationship with performance and the reverse has been
typically shown in research findings (Elliot et al. 1999; Greene and Miller 1996; Pintrich
and Garcia 1991). However, some researchers have found a negative relationship between
deep processing and performance (Bandalos et al. 2003; Pokay and Blumenfeld 1990) or
no relationship between deep processing and performance (Schutz et al. 1998). Schutz
et al. (1998) suggest that students might need to develop a basic understanding of concepts
for deep processing strategies to be useful. Bandalos et al. (2003) and Pintrich and de
Groot (1990) described the negative relationship between deep processing and perfor-
mance as being due to the improper use of deep-processing strategies as students might not
know how and when to use deep-processing strategies effectively. Pokay and Blumenfeld
(1990) explained that students who are new to learning could need to experiment with
more strategies before finding those that work best for them. Perhaps deep processing is not
the best approach to learning in some situations and a surface-processing approach could
be more successful instead. Deep processing might best serve students who are already
experienced or becoming experts in a particular field and might not be useful to college
students who are new to an academic domain or who do not aspire eventually to become

123
Learning Environ Res (2008) 11:131–151 147

masters of the domain. Some tests and examinations also might encourage a surface-
processing approach of rote memorisation rather than deep comprehension of material.
Students with mastery-approach goals adopt deep-processing and surface-processing
learning styles to achieve strong mastery of information. Students seeking to master
information for the first time might need to form connections between new information and
old information (deep processing), but also could adopt rote rehearsal and memorisation
(surface processing) in order to retain new information and new connections between new
and old information. Adopting deep and surface learning styles might allow students with
mastery-approach goals to maximise their learning. Situational considerations as proposed
by Biggs (1985) could be influential with certain courses which promote the use of specific
learning styles over others. Students might experiment with a combination of learning
styles to decide which learning styles are best suited to their goals. As hypothesised,
students with performance-approach goals adopt surface-processing techniques and stu-
dents with performance-avoidance goals might adopt surface processing and
disorganisation. Students with avoidance goals were disorganised in their approaches to
learning and this relationship was particularly strong for students with mastery-avoidance
goals. These students could be frantically trying to avoid forgetting what they know and so
might be disorganised in their attempts to do so.
Self-efficacy was the strongest predictor of metacognition, followed by deep processing,
surface processing, and mastery avoidance. Most goal orientation variables had weak or no
relationships with metacognition, perhaps due to the relationship between goal orientation
and metacognition being mediated by other variables such as learning style and self-
efficacy. Self-efficacy had the strongest relationship with metacognition, suggesting that
people with confidence in their skills and abilities could have strong metacognitive skills.
Performance-approach and mastery-approach goals were positive predictors of self-
efficacy and mastery-avoidance was a negative predictor of self-efficacy. These findings
are consistent with research suggesting that students seeking to master information or
perform well need to be convinced of their abilities to achieve these goals (Ford et al.
1998; Pajares et al. 2000). Mastery-avoidance was negatively related to self-efficacy.
Although this has not been shown in the literature as research studies have collapsed across
approach and avoidance dimensions of mastery goals, this finding is reasonable as students
attempting to avoid forgetting information or losing skills might have little faith in their
capabilities to retain information and skills.
This study has strong implications for students, teachers, researchers and the learning
environment. Students can learn to have faith in their abilities and to adopt mastery and
performance goals. Teachers could benefit from encouraging students in their work and
fostering a strong sense of self-efficacy among students. Metacognition might not be
critical in the holistic learning environment. The richest learning environment could be one
that fosters support and encouragement and helps to build faith in abilities and skills. A
rich learning environment also could be one that teaches students mastery and performance
goals and how to achieve these goals. These findings could be of interest to researchers
who want to replicate these results in similar or different environments or delve deeper into
self-efficacy and other learning variables.
One clear limitation of the study arises from the participant pool. Most participants were
freshman college students new to the college experience and so might not have well
developed achievement goals or learning styles. Clearly, this model should be tested using
different samples. Different results could be observed with college seniors, graduate stu-
dents or adults in the workforce. This study also used a convenience sample and
participants were recruited from Introductory Psychology classes. The limitation of this

123
148 Learning Environ Res (2008) 11:131–151

method is that results could be generalised only to a similar sample of college students in
the Midwest region of the USA. This study utilised a large number of variables, com-
promising the parsimony of the model. Variables were not assessed in a causal manner
which creates difficulty in explaining relationships in causal terms. Relationships between
some variables could be bi-directional and the entire learning process could be cyclical,
providing some support for future tests of non-recursive models. Participants in this study
reported their learning style, self-efficacy and achievement goals. Students might be
reporting what they think they do, which could be different from what they actually do.
Future research could utilise observational measures instead of self-reports. However, the
results of the study are consistent with and support previous research, while providing
interesting findings for further investigation. The results emphasise the importance of self-
efficacy for performance and metacognition. Students should be encouraged to have
confidence in their abilities to achieve their goals as strong self-efficacy has implications
for deep processing, metacognition and performance. Students should also be encouraged
to use metacognition deep processing and mastery goals in their learning.

Acknowledgements This research is part of Dr. Coutinho’s dissertation work. Many thanks to Brad
Sagarin, John Skowronski, Katja Wiemer-Hastings, and Tom Smith for helpful comments on earlier ver-
sions of this research.

References

Ames, C. (1992). Achievement goals and the classroom motivational climate. In D. H. Schunk & J. L.
Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 327–348). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and
motivational processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 478–487.
Archer, J. (1994). Achievement goals as a measure of motivation in university students. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 19, 430–446.
Bandalos, D. L., Finney, S. J., & Geske, J. A. (2003). A model of statistics performance based on
achievement goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 604–616.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psy-
chologist, 28(2), 117–148.
Bandura, A. (1994). Regulative function of perceived self-efficacy. In M. G. Rumsey, C. B. Walker, & J. H.
Harris (Eds.), Personnel selection and classification (pp. 261–271). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman & Company.
Bandura, A., & Wood, R. (1989). Effect of perceived controllability and performance standards on self-
regulation of complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(5), 805–814.
Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
Biggs, J. B. (1985). The role of metalearning in study processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
55, 185–212.
Bisanz, G. L., Vesonder, G. T., & Voss, J. T. (1978). Knowledge of one’s own responding and the relation of
such knowledge to learning: A developmental study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 25,
116–128.
Bouffard, T., Boisvert, J., Vezeau, C., & Larouche, C. (1995). The impact of goal orientation on self-
regulation and performance among college students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65,
317–329.
Bouffard-Bouchard, T., Parent, S., & Larivee, S. (1991). Influence of self-efficacy on self-regulation and
performance among junior and senior high-school age students. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 14(2), 153–164.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and
school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

123
Learning Environ Res (2008) 11:131–151 149

Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mecha-
nisms. In F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 65–116).
New Jersey: Hillsdale.
Butler, R. (1993). Effects of task-and ego-achievement goals on information seeking during task engage-
ment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 18–31.
Button, S. B., Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1996). Goal orientation in organizational research: A
conceptual and empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(1),
26–48.
Chi, M. T., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students
study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.
Craik, F. I., & Lockhart, R. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.
Craik, F. I., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268–294.
Curda, S. K. (1997). Learners’ motivational characteristics in statistics: A causal model. Dissertation
Abstracts International Section A: Humanities & Social Sciences, 58(5-A), 1578.
Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J., & Kruger, J. (2003). Why people fail to recognize their own
incompetence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(3), 83–87.
Dunslosky, J., & Thiede, K. W. (1998). What makes people study more? An evaluation of factors that affect
self-paced study. Acta Psychologica, 98, 37–56.
Dweck, C. S. (1989). Motivation. In A. Lesgold & R. Glaser (Eds.), Foundations for a psychology of
education (pp. 100–125). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. S. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psy-
chological Review, 95, 256–273.
Elliot, A. J. (1999). Achievement goals and approach-avoidance motivation. Educational Psychologist, 34,
169–189.
Elliot, A. J., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5–12.
Elliot, A., & McGregor, H. (1999). Test anxiety and the hierarchical model of approach and avoidance
achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 628–644.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 9 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 80, 501–519.
Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A., & Gable, S. (1999). Achievement goals, study strategies, and exam per-
formance: A mediational analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 549–563.
Entwistle, N. (1988). Motivational factors in students’ approaches to learning. In R. Schmeck (Ed.),
Learning strategies and learning style: Perspectives on individual differences (pp. 21–51). New York:
Plenum Press.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of psychological inquiry.
American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.
Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. Weinert & R.
Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 21–29). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ford, J. K., Smith, E. M., Weissbein, D. A., Gully, S. M., & Salas, E. (1998). Relationships of goal
orientation, metacognitive activity, and practice strategies with learning outcomes and transfer. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 83, 218–233.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and mal-
leability. Academy of Management Review, 17, 183–211.
Greene, B. A., & Miller, R. B. (1996). Influence on achievement: Goals, perceived ability, and cognitive
engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 181–192.
Heyman, G. D., & Dweck, C. S. (1992). Achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: Their relation and their
role in adaptive motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 16, 231–247.
Hodge, E., Palmer, B. C., & Scott, D. (1992). Metacognitive training in cooperative groups on the reading
comprehension vocabulary of at-risk college students. College Student Journal, 26(4), 440–448.
Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading: Issues in definition,
measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22, 255–278.
Kanfer, R. (1990a). Motivation theory and industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L.
Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 75–170).
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Kanfer, R. (1990b). Motivational and individual differences in learning: An integration of developmental,
differential, and cognitive perspectives. Learning and Individual Differences, 2, 221–239.

123
150 Learning Environ Res (2008) 11:131–151

Kanfer, R. (1992). Work motivation: New directions in theory and research. In C. L. Cooper & I. T.
Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 1–53).
London: Wiley.
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude-treatment
interaction approach to skill acquisition [Monograph]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 657–690.
Kohler, B. D. (2002). The effects of metacognitive language learning strategy explanation on lower-
achieving second language learners. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63, 1690.
Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How differences in recognizing one’s own
incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6),
1121–1134.
Lalonde, B. D. (1980). The construction and validation of a measure of academic self-efficacy. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 40, 4510.
Leasure, R. W. (1997). The relationship of accuracy of test performance predictions. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 57, 3392.
Lee, O., & Anderson, C. W. (1993). Task engagement and conceptual change in middle school science
classrooms. American Education Research Journal, 30, 585–610.
Locke, E. A., Frederick, E., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1984). Effect of self-efficacy, goals, and task strategies on
task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 241–251.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Marton, F., & Sa’ljo’, R. (1997). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.),
The experience of learning: Implications for teaching and studying in higher education (2nd ed., pp.
39–58). Edinburgh, UK: Scottish Academic Press.
Mayer, E. R. (1998). Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem solving. Instructional
Science, 26, 49–63.
Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students’ goal orientations and cognitive
engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514–523.
Meece, J. L., & Holt, K. (1993). A pattern of analysis of students’ achievement goals. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 85, 582–590.
Meichenbaum, D. H. (1977). Cognitive behavioral modification: An integrative approach. New York:
Plenum Press.
Middleton, M., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An unexplored aspect
of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 710–718.
Mitchell, T. R., Hopper, H., Daniels, D., George-Flavy, J., & James, L. R. (1994). Predicting self-efficacy
and performance during skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 506–517.
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes:
A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 30–38.
Nietfeld, J. L., & Schraw, G. (2002). The effect of knowledge and strategy explanation on monitoring
accuracy. Journal of Educational Research, 95, 131–142.
Nolen, S. B. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motivational orientation and study strategies. Cognition and
Instruction, 5, 269–287.
Nolen, S. B., & Haladyna, T. M. (1990a). Motivation and studying in high school science. Journal of
Research in Science and Teaching, 27, 115–126.
Nolen, S. B., & Haladyna, T. M. (1990b). Personal and environmental influences on students’ beliefs about
effective study strategies. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15, 116–130.
Nolen, S. B., & Haladyna, T. M. (1990c). A construct validation of measures of students’ study strategy beliefs
and perceptions of teacher goals. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50, 191–202.
Pajares, F., Britner, S., & Valiante, G. (2000). Relation between achievement goals and self-beliefs
of middle school students in writing and science. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25,
406–422.
Pajares, F., & Kranzler, J. (1995, April). Competence and confidence in mathematics: The role of self-
efficacy, self-concept, anxiety, and ability. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem-
solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 193–203.
Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (1997). Role of goal 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. (2000). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation terminology, theory,
and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 92–104.

123
Learning Environ Res (2008) 11:131–151 151

Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivation and self-regulated learning components of classroom
academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.
Pintrich, P. R., & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self regulation in the college classroom. In
M. L. Maher & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 7, pp. 371–402).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students’ motivational beliefs and their cognitive engagement in
academic tasks. In D. Schunk & J. Meece (Eds.), Students’ perception in the classroom: Causes and
consequences (pp. 149–183). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of
the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Meas-
urement, 53, 801–803.
Pokay, P., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (1990). Predicting achievement early and late in the semester: The role of
motivation and use of learning strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 144–161.
Sarason, I. G. (1975). Anxiety and self-preoccupation. In I. G. Sarason & D. C. Spielberger (Eds.), Stress
and anxiety (Vol. 2, pp. 27–44). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Schmidt, A. M., & Ford, J. K. (2003). Learning within a learner control training environment: The inter-
active effects of goal orientation and metacognitive instruction on learning outcomes. Personnel
Psychology, 56, 405–429.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1983). Beyond the purely cognitive: Belief systems, social cognitions, and metacognitive
as driving forces in intellectual performance. Cognitive Science, 7, 329–363.
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 19, 460–475.
Schraw, G., Horn, C., Thorndike-Christ, T., & Bruning, R. (1995). Academic goal orientations and student
classroom achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 359–368.
Schutz, P. A., Drogosz, L. M., White, V. E., & DiStefano, C. (1998). Prior knowledge, attitude, and strategy
use in an introduction to statistics course. Learning and Individual Differences, 10, 291–308.
Snow, R. E. (1989). Toward assessment of cognitive and conative structures in learning. Educational
Researcher, 18(9), 8–14.
Talbot, D. C. (1997). Metacognitive strategy explanation for reading: Developing second language learners’
awareness of expository text patterns. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 4310.
Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M. C. M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects
learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 66–73.
VandeWalle, D., Brown, S. P., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W. (1999). The influence of goal orientation and
self-regulation tactics on sales performance: A longitudinal field test. Journal of Applied Psychology,
84, 249–259.
Vermetten, Y. J., Lodewijks, H. G., & Vermunt, J. D. (2001). The role of personality traits and goal
orientations in strategy use. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 149–170.
Vermunt, J. D. H. M. (1998). The regulation of constructive learning processes. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 68(1), 149–171.
Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 315–327). New York: Macmillan.
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible
to all students. Cognition & Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.
Wolters, C. (1998). Self-regulated learning and college students’ regulation of motivation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 90, 224–235.
Wolters, C. A., Yu, S. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). The relation between goal orientation and students’
motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8(3), 211–238.
Wood, R. E., Bandura, A., & Bailey, T. (1990). Mechanisms governing organizational productivity in
complex decision-making environments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46,
158–164.

123