View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Role of Personal Best Goal Setting and Teaching Styles in Homework Behavior: An Academic Demands-Resources Perspective

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Role of Personal Best Goal Setting and Teaching Styles in Homework Behavior: An Academic Demands-Resources Perspective
Language: English
Authors: Helena Granziera (ORCID 0000-0002-9628-7266), Rebecca J. Collie, Andrew J. Martin
Source: Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal. 2024 27(4):2129-2142.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 14
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Goal Orientation, Teaching Styles, Homework, Student Improvement, Academic Persistence, Predictor Variables, Student Behavior
DOI: 10.1007/s11218-024-09896-1
ISSN: 1381-2890
1573-1928
Abstract: Personal best (PB) goal setting refers to the pursuit of individual improvement through striving to outperform a previous best level of performance or effort. Although promising evidence has been building, numerous empirical questions remain to be answered, including how PB goal setting may operate alongside various contextual predictors of academic functioning. Applying the Academic Demands-Resources (AD-R) framework, the present study examined how academic resources and demands (conceptualized by way of teachers' interpersonal styles: autonomy-supportive and psychologically-controlling/thwarting teaching) and personal resources (PB goal setting) are associated with parent reports of students' behavioral engagement (homework behavior). The study comprised 414 Australian secondary school students. Results of structural equation modeling revealed that PB goal setting significantly predicted positive homework behavior and also moderated the association between psychologically-controlling teaching practices and homework behavior, such that PB goal setting was associated with positive homework behavior under conditions of high demands. The present work highlights the potentially unique contribution of PB goal setting in facilitating students' adaptive engagement and demonstrates the utility of the AD-R framework for better understanding students' engagement in the academic context.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1439588
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFK8ZA3gPCcXjkHLOqXOe9lAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDDvM_HAQnzacfUqL3gIBEICBmylIE85eCMhtN1DAnQF79GQg4sliAxkg1JC0YtFcs6nyQ4jFw9Nt18khMxu4U0VVLpCgl0DnBCNOj7M9Ir7QdQLd7nYB0ZF2YIjgjIABGxsl9mPPjw8h0rCEoGdZsD9LsedwxRE6KioS2QTmcCq0dEhOxICCjqgND3cyLdaIA4bN1gyROwBgvEX9jg5FTsyRuef3pRKjTVF3ygwe
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0179690073;luo01aug.24;2024Sep19.05:40;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0179690073-1">The role of personal best goal setting and teaching styles in homework behavior: An academic demands-resources perspective </title> <p>Personal best (PB) goal setting refers to the pursuit of individual improvement through striving to outperform a previous best level of performance or effort. Although promising evidence has been building, numerous empirical questions remain to be answered, including how PB goal setting may operate alongside various contextual predictors of academic functioning. Applying the Academic Demands-Resources (AD-R) framework, the present study examined how academic resources and demands (conceptualized by way of teachers' interpersonal styles: autonomy-supportive and psychologically-controlling/thwarting teaching) and personal resources (PB goal setting) are associated with parent reports of students' behavioral engagement (homework behavior). The study comprised 414 Australian secondary school students. Results of structural equation modeling revealed that PB goal setting significantly predicted positive homework behavior and also moderated the association between psychologically-controlling teaching practices and homework behavior, such that PB goal setting was associated with positive homework behavior under conditions of high demands. The present work highlights the potentially unique contribution of PB goal setting in facilitating students' adaptive engagement and demonstrates the utility of the AD-R framework for better understanding students' engagement in the academic context.</p> <p>Keywords: Personal best goals; Student achievement; Academic demands-resources</p> <hd id="AN0179690073-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Goal setting is an important self-regulatory capacity that is associated with a range of adaptive outcomes in the academic context (Zimmerman, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref1">40</reflink>]). Personal best (PB) goal setting – striving to outperform a previous best performance or effort – has emerged as a particularly salient predictor of positive educational outcomes, such as perseverance, engagement, and academic achievement (Benlahcene, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref2">4</reflink>]; Martin et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref3">29</reflink>]; Ramshe et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref4">32</reflink>]). Although prior research (e.g., Bardach et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref5">2</reflink>]; Burns et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref6">6</reflink>]) has established that PB goal setting is important for students' academic outcomes, positive social functioning, and engagement, this prior work has not considered whether PB goal setting retains its importance when examined alongside other significant determinants of students' motivation—such as teaching styles. We investigated this question by applying the recently proposed Academic Demands-Resources (AD-R) framework (Martin & Collie, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref7">24</reflink>]) to represent PB goal setting as a personal resource, alongside academic resources and demands (autonomy-supportive teaching and psychologically-controlling/thwarting teaching), as predictors of parents' reports of their child's academic engagement. Figure 1 displays the hypothesized model.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Hypothesized model. Note PB Goal Setting = Personal Best Goal Setting</p> <hd id="AN0179690073-3">Literature Review</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0179690073-4">The academic demands-resources framework</hd> <p>The AD-R Framework draws on Job Demands-Resources theory (JD-R; Demerouti et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref8">12</reflink>]) which has its origins in organizational psychology. Following JD-R theory, central to the AD-R framework is the existence of a motivational process, which posits that academic and/or personal resources are inherently motivational, and facilitate adaptive outcomes such as engagement, satisfaction, and well-being (Collie, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref9">9</reflink>]; Martin et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref10">28</reflink>]; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref11">35</reflink>]). Martin and Collie ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref12">24</reflink>]) suggested that academic resources are aspects of the schooling context that help students to achieve their desired goals and facilitate academic growth (e.g., supportive teachers), while demands in the educational setting refer to aspects of learning that require psychological or physical exertion (e.g., unsupportive teaching in the case of psychological exertion). In the present study, we contend that teachers' interpersonal styles constitute academic resources and demands given their potential to stimulate or diametrically hamper students' academic and social-emotional growth and development. Further, personal resources refer to the modifiable capacities that enable students to exercise control over their environment and which are functional in stimulating growth and development (Schaufeli & Taris, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref13">34</reflink>]). In the current study, PB goal setting is positioned as a personal resource because it connotes a sense of agency in students' learning environment and assists students to achieve their goals. Alongside the motivational process described above and drawing on JD-R theory, the AD-R framework also proposes several interaction processes that involve moderation among resources and demands. Of particular interest is the boosting effect, which indicates that academic and personal resources lead to increased well-being, motivation, and performance when academic demands are high. According to Hobfoll ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref14">17</reflink>]), individuals actively seek to cultivate and protect social, personal, or material resources. These resources become particularly salient under periods of resource loss, as individuals mobilize such resources to protect further depletion. Thus, in the context of the AD-R framework, academic and personal resources are most useful in the face or threat of resource loss (i.e., by way of high academic demands). In the present study, the extent to which PB goal setting is salient under conditions of high academic demands (i.e., high levels of psychologically-controlling teaching practices) was thus of empirical interest.</p> <hd id="AN0179690073-5">PB goal setting (personal resource)</hd> <p>PB goal setting refers to the pursuit of goals which focus on improvement on one's own highest level of performance or effort. These goals thus focus on personal progress, personal growth, and self-improvement (Bostwick et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref15">5</reflink>]; Martin et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref16">29</reflink>]), These goals are competitively self-referenced targets that match or exceed a previous best performance or effort (Bostwick et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref17">5</reflink>]; Martin & Liem, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref18">26</reflink>]). For instance, for school students a PB goal may be scoring higher on an end of unit test compared to a previous test, or completing more mathematics problems in a set period of time compared to one's previous completion rate. There are some conceptual and operational similarities between mastery goals and PB goals; indeed, both are associated with adaptive motivation and engagement (albeit in unique but complementary ways; Martin & Elliot, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref19">25</reflink>]) and both use the self as a possible referent. Together, mastery and personal best goals capture a more extensive totality of an overall mastery-oriented approach (Martin & Elliot, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref20">25</reflink>]). However―and of central importance―there are distinct nuances between PB goals and similar goal constructs―e.g., mastery goals and self-approach goals. As described above, while mastery goals are both task-based and self-based, PB goals are solely self-based. While mastery goals or self-approach goals are focused on learning, personal best goals relate to outperforming oneself (whether that be in relation to effort or in relation to academic results; indeed, mastery goals appear to be intrapsychic goals in that they focus on changing inner knowledge, while PB goals may be more observable as they tend to be oriented toward action, behavior, and/or academic outcomes (Martin & Elliot, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref21">25</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0179690073-6">Teachers' interpersonal styles (academic resource and demand)</hd> <p>Teachers are pivotal in helping students to achieve their goals (Klem & Connell, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref22">20</reflink>]) and in coping with the demands of school (Wentzel et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref23">38</reflink>]). Teachers' interpersonal styles can be broadly demarcated into autonomy-supportive and psychologically-controlling (thwarting) approaches. Teachers who are autonomy-supportive generally adopt a student-focused attitude and consider students' thoughts, feelings, and behaviors to support their intrinsic motivation (Reeve & Cheon, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref24">33</reflink>]). In contrast, psychologically-controlling (or thwarting) teaching pressures students to adopt their perspectives, are critical or dismissive of students' thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, and attempt to induce behavior through control (Reeve & Cheon, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref25">33</reflink>]). The present research considers a teacher's autonomy-supportive teaching style to be an academic resource to students, as it facilitates students' capacity for academic growth (Hattie, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref26">16</reflink>]; Madigan & Kim, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref27">22</reflink>])—and by implication, their PB goal setting. We also argue that psychologically-controlling teaching styles constitute an academic demand for students given that they frustrate students' basic needs, and require significant cognitive and psychological effort to cope with feelings of pressure and inferiority (Bartholomew et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref28">3</reflink>]; Haerens et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref29">15</reflink>]) that we posit are antithetical to positive outcomes. However, as per the boosting process in the AD-R framework, we suggest that PB goals become particularly important in the face of psychologically-controlling teaching because they empower students to take charge of their own learning and may then help reduce the sense of pressure imposed by psychologically-controlling teaching.</p> <hd id="AN0179690073-7">Homework behavior</hd> <p>Homework requires active participation and provides an opportunity for students to consolidate learning that occurs within the classroom (Jones, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref30">19</reflink>]). It is thus considered an important indicator of behavioral engagement as well as a predictor of future academic performance (Valle et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref31">37</reflink>]). Prior work (e.g., Luo et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref32">21</reflink>]) has established associations between clusters of adaptive goal orientations―including those comprising mastery goal orientations and participation in learning activities such as homework. However, such work has adopted a combination-goal approach, which does not allow for analysis of unique variance attributable to a particular goal construct―such as from PB goal setting.</p> <p>From a theoretical perspective, PB goal setting may be positively associated with positive homework behavior because growth-oriented goals create a mental framework characterized by a personal improvement perspective (Martin et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref33">29</reflink>]). Prior work involving PB goal setting has been largely associated with student-reported outcomes. In the present investigation we sought to extend this work by including a parent-reported outcome of behavioral engagement: homework behavior, as denoted by homework completion (the extent to which students complete the homework tasks assigned to them). Fredricks and McColskey ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref34">13</reflink>]) highlighted the need for more objective reports of behavioral engagement, such as those from parents or teachers. Hence, in the present study parental reports of homework completion were obtained.</p> <hd id="AN0179690073-8">Hypotheses</hd> <p>Based on the work described above, we anticipated that autonomy-supportive teaching (academic resource) would be positively associated with homework completion, while the reverse would be true for psychologically-controlling styles (an academic demand). Similarly, given the prior work linking PB goal setting with students' reports of homework behavior, we hypothesized a positive association between these variables. Finally, although prior work has not considered the boosting process with respect to PB goal setting, given that psychologically-controlling teaching can threaten students' existing resources, PB goal setting may be particularly important for preventing resource loss and be associated with positive homework behavior under conditions of high demands (psychologically-controlling teaching)―leading us to hypothesize an interaction between PB goal setting and psychologically-controlling teaching.</p> <hd id="AN0179690073-9">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0179690073-10">Sample and procedure</hd> <p>In total, 414 secondary school students (in Years 9 and 10) and 414 parents responded to the survey. The number of parents and students in the study was identical because the data collection procedure involved parents completing their part of the survey and then handing their device to their child to complete the student part of the survey. To avoid the possibility of parents responding for multiple children, it was a requirement by Qualtrics that parents respond only for one child per family. We further ensured this was the case by conducting a check for any duplicate IP addresses. Thus, it is very unlikely that there were instances of family clusters. The demographic data described reflects the characteristics of the student sample. Of the sample, 199 (48.1%) were female. Student ages ranged between 14 and 16 years. Participants were recruited through Qualtrics. Further information regarding recruitment procedures is described in the Supplementary Materials. The anonymous online survey was delivered by Qualtrics. Ethics approval was received from the authors' Institutional Review Board. This study's data are shared with a larger project looking at demands and resources in learning. However, none of the substantive variables have been examined previously.</p> <hd id="AN0179690073-11">Measures</hd> <p>Items on all scales were rated using a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree). Students' perceptions of <emph>autonomy-supportive teaching practices</emph> were examined by way of the 6-item short-form of the Learning Climate Questionnaire (e.g., I feel understood by my teachers"; Williams & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref35">39</reflink>]). Based on the work of Haerens (2015), which suggests that students' perceptions of multiple teachers' teaching styles are similar to those identified from perceptions of an individual teachers, we asked students to think about the main teachers they interact with. The scale has demonstrated consistent evidence of reliability and validity in prior work involving teachers (e.g., Collie et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref36">11</reflink>]). In the present study, a coefficient omega of 0.92 was found.</p> <p> <emph>Psychologically-controlling teaching practices</emph> were examined using the 7-item Psychologically-controlling Teaching Questionnaire (e.g., "My teachers are always trying to change me"; Soenens et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref37">36</reflink>]). The scale has demonstrated sound psychometric properties in prior work (e.g., Collie et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref38">11</reflink>]; Soenens et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref39">36</reflink>]). The coefficient omega was 0.82 in the current study.</p> <p> <emph>PB goal setting</emph> was examined by way of the PB goal scale items developed by Martin ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref40">23</reflink>]; e.g., "When I do my schoolwork, I try to do it better than I've done before"; "When I do my schoolwork, I try to get a better result than I've got before"). The scale has been widely used and validated (e.g., Burns et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref41">7</reflink>]). A coefficient omega of 0.84 was found in the present study.</p> <p> <emph>Homework behaviors</emph> were examined using an adaptation of the homework practices scale used by Burns et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref42">7</reflink>]). Items were adapted to include "your child" in the place of "you"; e.g., "How often does your child do the homework given to them"; "How often does your child complete the homework given to them?". This scale demonstrated sound psychometric properties in prior samples of teachers (e.g., Collie et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref43">11</reflink>]). The present study provided the opportunity to test use of the scale with a parent population. A coefficient omega of 0.87 was derived in the present study.</p> <p>In addition to the substantive factors, two demographic factors were examined: gender (coded 0 for males, 1 for females) and socioeconomic status (calculated using the Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage [ICSEA], determined from student postcode).</p> <hd id="AN0179690073-12">Data analysis</hd> <p>Analyses consisted of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM) using M<emph>plus</emph> version 8 (Muthén & Muthén, 2018) with robust maximum likelihood (MLR) as the estimator. The Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) defaults in M<emph>plus</emph> were employed to deal with missing data (4.3%). Initial analysis of the data involved calculating descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) at the item-level was run to provide measurement support, obtain latent correlations, and calculate reliability estimates of all substantive variables using omega coefficients. Substantive factors were estimated as latent factors. Demographic characteristics were measured as manifest variables (loading set to 1, residuals set to 0). Next, SEM was conducted to examine the structural associations between the factors as per Fig. 1, while controlling for shared variance and covariates. The latent interaction between PB goal setting * psychologically-controlling teaching practices was also tested as a predictor of homework behavior using latent moderated SEM. Although not a central focus, for completeness, we also tested the latent interaction between PB goal setting * autonomy-supportive teaching practices. The latent interaction paths were run using the "XWITH" option in M<emph>plus</emph> (Muthén & Muthén, 2018). Consistent with the recommendations made by Maslowsky et al. ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref44">30</reflink>]), after adding the interaction paths to the latent moderated SEM, a log-likelihood ratio test was run to determine whether their addition improved model fit. Then, the interaction effects were tested for their significance, and change in <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> for the outcomes was determined (Maslowsky et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref45">30</reflink>]). The full syntax used for analyses can be found in S1.</p> <hd id="AN0179690073-13">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0179690073-14">Preliminary analyses</hd> <p>Loading means and ranges are presented in Table 1. Table 2 shows latent correlations among substantive factors. The CFA yielded good fit[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref46">1</reflink>] and correlations were generally in the direction and magnitude as expected: autonomy-supportive teaching and PB goal setting were positively and significantly related to each other, and negatively associated with psychologically-controlling teaching practices. In turn autonomy-supportive teaching and PB goal setting were positively associated with homework behavior, while psychologically-controlling teaching was negatively associated with PB goal setting.</p> <p>Table 1 Descriptive statistics, reliability, and factor loadings</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Mean</p></th><th align="left"><p>Standard</p><p>deviation</p></th><th align="left"><p>Skewness</p></th><th align="left"><p>Kurtosis</p></th><th align="left"><p>Omega coefficient (ω)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Mean of CFA</p><p>factor loadings</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Autonomy-supportive teaching practices</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.95</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.03</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.27</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.07</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.84</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.68</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Psychologically-controlling teaching practices</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.78</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.32</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.35</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.48</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.88</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.74</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Personal best growth goals</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.19</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.07</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.35</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.10</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.86</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.78</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Homework behavior</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.89</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.95</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.96</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.44</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.92</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.87</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 2 Latent correlations among factors</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>1</p></th><th align="left"><p>2</p></th><th align="left"><p>3</p></th><th align="left"><p>4</p></th><th align="left"><p>5</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>• Gender (Male)</p></td><td align="left"><p>—</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>• Socioeconomic status</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.09</p></td><td align="left"><p>—</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>• Autonomy-supportive teaching practices</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.20***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.05</p></td><td align="left"><p>—</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>• Psychologically-controlling teaching practices</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.10</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.09</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.38***</p></td><td align="left"><p>—</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>• Personal best goals</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.03</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.17***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.68***</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.18**</p></td><td align="left"><p>—</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>• Homework Behavior</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.01</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.06</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.44***</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.21***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.65***</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note</emph> Age (in years), Gender (0 = male, 1 = female) *<emph>p</emph> <.05, **<emph>p</emph> <.01, ***<emph>p</emph> <.001</p> <hd id="AN0179690073-15">Structural equation modeling</hd> <p>The hypothesized structural model provided a good fit to the data χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib217" id="ref47">217</reflink>) = 462.906, <emph>p</emph> <.001, RMSEA = 0.052, CFI = 0.94 (indeed, the same fit as the CFA as it was a "fully forward" SEM). Figure 2 shows significant paths among substantive factors and Table 3 show all paths (non-significant and significant, including those involving covariates). PB goal setting significantly and positively predicted homework behavior (β = 0.74, <emph>p <.</emph>001). Conversely, psychologically-controlling teaching negatively predicted homework behavior (β = − 0.20, <emph>p <.</emph>001). Notably, autonomy-supportive teaching was not significantly associated with homework behavior. In addition to the main effects, socioeconomic status and gender were found to be significantly associated with PB goal setting, psychologically-controlling teaching, and autonomy-supportive teaching. Specifically, higher socioeconomic status was associated with higher levels of PB goal setting (β = 0.17, <emph>p <.</emph>001) and female students perceived higher levels of psychologically-controlling teaching (β = 0.10, <emph>p <.</emph>05) and lower levels of autonomy-supportive teaching (β = − 0.20, <emph>p <.</emph>001). These results are shown in Table 3. To ensure the betas associated with these pathways were statistically significant different, we conducted a Wald Test of Parameter Constraints, which indicated the pathways were indeed significantly different.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Final structural equation model. Note PB Goal Setting = Personal Best Goal Setting; x indicates interaction term; All paths above are standardized beta paths</p> <p>Table 3 Standardized betas reported between covariates and substantive factors</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Autonomy-supportive teaching practices</p></th><th align="left"><p>Psychologically-controlling teaching practices</p></th><th align="left"><p>PB goal setting</p></th><th align="left"><p>Homework behavior</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Covariates</italic></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Gender</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.20***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.10*</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.04</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.03</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Socioeconomic status</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.03</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.10</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.17***</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.05</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Substantive factors</italic></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Autonomy-supportive teaching practices</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>− 0.15</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Psychologically-controlling teaching practices</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>− 0.20***</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> PB goal setting</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.74***</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Interaction term</italic></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Psychologically-controlling teaching practices x PB goal setting</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.20***</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>To examine the possible boosting effect of PB goal setting, the model additionally examined the associations between two interaction terms (PB goal setting * psychologically-controlling teaching practices and, for completeness, PB goal setting * autonomy-supportive teaching). Only the interaction between PB goal setting and psychologically-controlling teaching was found to be significant, and was associated with homework behavior (β = 0.20, <emph>p <.</emph>001). Simple slope tests were conducted to determine whether the slopes were significantly different from zero at different levels of psychologically-controlling teaching. Three levels of psychologically-controlling teaching were explored: low (one standard deviation below the mean), medium (mean), and high (one standard above the mean). These results are shown in Fig. 3. For students experiencing low (<emph>b</emph> = − 0.32, <emph>p <.</emph>001), mean (<emph>b</emph> = − 0.65, <emph>p <.</emph>001), or high (<emph>b</emph> = − 0.98, <emph>p</emph> =.001) psychologically-controlling teaching, greater levels of PB goal setting were associated with higher levels of homework behavior—however, pivotally, the slope was steepest in the case of students reporting high psychologically-controlling teaching, which indicates the boosting process.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Simple slopes interpretation of interaction between PB goal setting and psychologically-controlling teaching. Note PCTPs = Psychologically-controlling Teaching Practices; PB Goal Setting = Personal Best Goal Setting</p> <hd id="AN0179690073-16">Discussion</hd> <p>The present study has extended existing knowledge about goal setting by demonstrating significant variance in homework behavior uniquely attributable to a personal resource, PB goal setting. In modelling this personal resource alongside academic resources (autonomy-supportive teaching) and demands (psychologically-controlling teaching), the study also suggests further support for the AD-R framework.</p> <hd id="AN0179690073-17">Personal best goal setting as personal resource</hd> <p>To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the first studies to consider PB goal setting as a resource alongside autonomy-supportive and psychologically-controlling teaching practices. It was thus significant to note that when examined alongside these teaching styles, PB goal setting yielded the strongest association with positive homework behavior. Indeed, it is notable that PB goal setting retained significance given that autonomy-supportive teaching practices and homework behavior were strongly and significantly associated in bivariate correlations. PB goal setting thus accounted for significant variance above and beyond two well-established predictors of academic engagement (e.g., Cheon et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref48">8</reflink>]; Soenens et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref49">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>Consistent with prior work (Burns et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref50">6</reflink>]; Martin et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref51">29</reflink>]), it may be that students who set PB goals see homework completion as a means by which they can achieve their personal goals. Further, PB goal setting may be more closely associated with homework behaviors compared to autonomy-supportive and psychologically-controlling teaching because PB goal setting is inherently self-referenced and self-generated (Martin et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref52">29</reflink>]), and students may thus feel they have greater personal control and agency over these factors, leading to greater investment in and implementation of this resource. Taken together, the structural associations between the independent (resources and demands) and dependent (outcome) variables point to the comparative importance of PB goal setting (relative to teaching practices) in students' homework behavior. Thus, while teaching styles are certainly of relevance in understanding how to optimize students' academic engagement (such as their homework behavior), there is also clear utility in cultivating students' personal capacities, such as PB goal setting. Indeed, as described below, intervention research on PB goal setting shows this approach has viability.</p> <hd id="AN0179690073-18">The protective role of PB goals</hd> <p>Analysis of the interactions between the resources and demands revealed that for students experiencing low, average, and high psychologically-controlling teaching practices, homework behavior increased as PB goal setting increased. Importantly, this incline was the steepest in the case of high psychologically-controlling teaching practices, indicating that PB goal setting was more strongly associated with positive homework behavior under these high demand conditions. This finding is indicative of the boosting process described in JD-R theory (Schaufeli & Taris, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref53">34</reflink>]) and thus also the AD-R framework (Martin & Collie, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref54">24</reflink>]), and suggests PB goal setting is a personal resource that becomes particularly salient in the face of high demands and resource loss. According to Hobfoll et al. ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref55">18</reflink>]), individuals invest resources to protect themselves against or recover from resource loss and to acquire resources. It is possible that because psychologically-controlling teaching practices may lead to a sense of loss of autonomy, relatedness, or competence (Amoura et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref56">1</reflink>]), students who invest in PB goal setting as a mechanism to protect against this loss are more academically engaged. Because volition and choice are central to PB goal setting (Collie et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref57">10</reflink>]), students may draw on this resource to sustain their engagement and pursuit of academic goals. It will be important to confirm this association in future work.</p> <hd id="AN0179690073-19">Implications and future directions</hd> <p>The findings of the present study reaffirm the importance of encouraging students to set and strive towards PB goals (Bardach et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref58">2</reflink>]; Martin et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref59">29</reflink>]). In practice, this can involve students reflecting on their progress in relation to these goals, monitor their progress towards these goals, and upwardly revise these goals as they attain new levels of performance and/or effort (Ginns et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref60">14</reflink>]). As noted earlier, these ideas have empirical support by way of the intervention research conducted to date. For instance, Ginns et al. ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref61">14</reflink>]) found that elementary school students who set PB goals when undertaking an arithmetic activity demonstrated higher achievement compared to a no-goal control group. Martin et al. ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref62">27</reflink>]) similarly demonstrated the potential efficacy of explicitly teaching and monitoring PB goals, reporting significant growth in science valuing and aspirations among school students.</p> <p>Going forward, there is also merit in addressing some limitations inherent in the present research design. For example, future work employing longitudinal designs will be important for understanding the extent to which PB goal setting can help to sustain engagement throughout periods of academic challenge. It will also be important to examine the unique effects of PB goal setting alongside other salient personal resources (e.g., adaptability, academic buoyancy) that may be implicated in academic resources, demands, and outcomes, and in the context of more detailed demographic data – both in respect to students and parents. Further to this point, whilst the AD-R framework posits a dual process framework, whereby contextual and dispositional resources are examined simultaneously, future work may disentangle these associations further by focusing on one class of resources. Furthermore, although we sought to mitigate the possibility of the halo effect and similar biases by using multi-informants, such cognitive biases may have been present. In addition, further investigation will be necessary to clarify whether the protective effects of PB goal setting function similarly in the face of other demands (e.g., test pressures). In such ways, future researchers will even better understand the utility of PB goal setting in students' academic development and the role of the AD-R framework in guiding this work.</p> <hd id="AN0179690073-20">Author contributions</hd> <p>All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Helena Granziera, Andrew J. Martin and Rebecca J. Collie. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Helena Granziera and all authors commented on subsequent versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0179690073-21">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0179690073-22">Ethical approval</hd> <p>The authors hereby declare that the study received full institutional ethics approval. All participants were required to provide informed consent in order to participate in the study.</p> <hd id="AN0179690073-23">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>Author 1 and Author 2 are on the Editorial Board of Social Psychology of Education.</p> <hd id="AN0179690073-24">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0179690073-25"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref46" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Amoura C, Berjot S, Gillet N, Caruana S, Finez L. Effects of autonomy supportive and controlling styles on situational self-determined motivation: Some unexpected results of the commitment procedure. Psychological Reports. 2015; 116; 1: 33-59. 10.2466/14.PR0.116k10w7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref5" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bardach L, Lüftenegger M, Oczlon S, Spiel C, Schober B. Context-related problems and university students' dropout intentions—the buffering effect of personal best goals. European Journal of Psychology of Education. 2020; 35; 2: 477-493. 10.1007/s10212-019-00433-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref28" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bartholomew KJ, Ntoumanis N, Mouratidis A, Katartzi E, Thøgersen-Ntoumani C, Vlachopoulos S. Beware of your teaching style: A school year-long investigation of controlling teaching and student motivational experiences. Learning and Instruction. 2018; 53: 50-63. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.07.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref2" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Benlahcene A. Flourishing and student engagement in Malaysian university students: The mediating role of Personal Best (PB) goals. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. 2022; 31; 2: 137-146. 10.1007/s40299-020-00544-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref15" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bostwick K, Collie RJ, Martin AJ, Durksen T. Teacher, classroom, and student growth orientation in mathematics: A multilevel examination of growth goals, growth mindset, engagement, and achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2020; 94: 103100. 10.1016/j.tate.2020.103100</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Burns EC, Martin AJ, Collie RJ. Adaptability, personal best (PB) goal setting, and gains in students' academic outcomes: A longitudinal examination from a social cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2018; 53: 57-72. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.02.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref41" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Burns EC, Martin AJ, Collie RJ. Understanding the role of personal best (PB) goal setting in students' declining engagement: A latent growth model. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2019; 111; 4: 557-572. 10.1037/edu0000291</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref48" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cheon SH, Reeve J, Vansteenkiste M. When teachers learn how to provide classroom structure in an autonomy-supportive way: Benefits to teachers and their students. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2020; 90: 103004. 10.1016/j.tate.2019.103004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Collie, R. J. (2021). COVID-19 and teachers' somatic burden, stress, and emotional exhaustion: Examining the role of principal leadership and workplace buoyancy. AERA Open, 7, Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420986187.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Collie RJ, Shapka JD, Perry NE, Martin AJ. Teachers' psychological functioning in the workplace: Exploring the roles of contextual beliefs, need satisfaction, and personal characteristics. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2016; 108; 6: 788-799. 10.1037/edu0000088</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Collie, R. J, Granziera, H, & Martin, A. J. (2019). Teachers' motivational approach: Links with students' basic psychological need frustration, maladaptive engagement, and academic outcomes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 86, 102872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.07.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Demerouti E, Bakker AB, Nachreiner F, Schaufeli W. The job demands-resources model of burnout. The Journal of Applied Psychology. 2001; 86; 3: 499-512. 10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fredricks, J. A, & McColskey, W. (2012). The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In S. Christenson, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.) Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 763–782). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_37</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ginns P, Martin AJ, Durksen TL, Burns EC, Pope A. Personal best (PB) goal-setting enhances arithmetical problem-solving. The Australian Educational Researcher. 2018; 45; 4: 533-551. 10.1007/s13384-018-0268-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haerens L, Aelterman N, Vansteenkiste M, Soenens B, Van Petegem S. Do perceived autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching relate to physical education students' motivational experiences through unique pathways? Distinguishing between the bright and dark side of motivation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2015; 16; 3: 26-36. 10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.08.013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hobfoll SE. Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology. 2002; 6; 4: 307-324. 10.1037/1089-2680.6.4.307</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hobfoll SE, Halbesleben J, Neveu JP, Westman M. Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. 2018; 5: 103-128. 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones, A. B. (2021). Homework with impact: Why what you set and how you set it matters. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klem AM, Connell JP. Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health. 2004; 74; 7: 262-273. 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2004.tb08283.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luo W, Paris SG, Hogan D, Luo Z. Do performance goals promote learning? A pattern analysis of Singapore students' achievement goals. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2011; 36; 2: 165-176. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.02.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Madigan DJ, Kim LE. Does teacher burnout affect students? A systematic review of its association with academic achievement and student-reported outcomes. International Journal of Educational Research. 2021; 105: 101714. 10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101714</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin AJ. Personal bests (PBs): A proposed multidimensional model and empirical analysis. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2006; 76: 803-825. 10.1348/000709905X55389</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin, A. J, & Collie, R. J. (2022). The academic and cultural demands-resources (ACD-R) framework: Supporting the academic development of culturally and ethnically diverse students. In A. Holliman, & K. Sheehy (Eds.), Overcoming Adversity in Education (pp. 249–261). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003180029-22.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin AJ, Elliot AJ. The role of personal best (PB) goal setting in students' academic achievement gains. Learning and Individual Differences. 2016; 45: 222-227. 10.1016/j.lindif.2015.12.014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin AJ, Liem G. Academic personal bests (PBs), engagement, and achievement: A cross-lagged panel analysis. Learning and Individual Differences. 2010; 20; 3: 265-270. 10.1016/j.lindif.2010.01.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin AJ, Durksen TL, Williamson D, Kiss J, Ginns P. Personal best (PB) goal setting and students' motivation in science: A study of science valuing and aspirations. The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist. 2014; 31; 2: 85-96. 10.1017/edp.2014.19</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin AJ, Collie RJ, Nagy RP. Adaptability and high school students' online learning during COVID-19: A job demands-resources perspective. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021; 12: 3181. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.702163</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin AJ, Burns EC, Collie RJ, Bostwick KCP, Flesken A, McCarthy I. Growth goal setting in high school: A large-scale study of perceived instructional support, personal background attributes, and engagement outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2022; 114; 4: 752-771. 10.1037/edu0000682</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maslowsky J, Jager J, Hemken D. Estimating and interpreting latent variable interactions: A tutorial for applying the latent moderated structural equations method. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2015; 39; 1: 87-96. 10.1177/0165025414552301</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muthén, L. K, & Muthén, B. O. (2018). Mplus (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ramshe MH, Ghazanfari M, Ghonsooly B. The role of personal best goals in EFL learners' behavioural, cognitive, and emotional engagement. International Journal of Instruction. 2019; 12; 1: 1627-1638. 10.29333/iji.2019.121103a</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reeve J, Cheon SH. Autonomy-supportive teaching: Its malleability, benefits, and potential to improve educational practice. Educational Psychologist. 2021; 56; 1: 54-77. 10.1080/00461520.2020.1862657</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schaufeli, W. B, & Taris, A. W. (2014). A critical review of the Job Demands-Resources model: Implications for improving work and health. In G. Bauer, & O. Hemming (Eds.), Bridging occupational, organizational and public health (pp. 43–68). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5640-3_4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skaalvik EM, Skaalvik S. Job demands and job resources as predictors of teacher motivation and well-being. Social Psychology of Education. 2018; 21; 5: 1251-1275. 10.1007/s11218-018-9464-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Soenens B, Sierens E, Vansteenkiste M, Dochy F, Goossens L. Psychologically-controlling teaching: Examining outcomes, antecedents, and mediators. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2012; 104; 1: 108-120. 10.1037/a0025742</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Valle, A, Regueiro, B, Núñez, J. C, Rodríguez, S, Piñeiro, I, & Rosário, P. (2016). Academic goals, student homework engagement, and academic achievement in elementary school. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 463. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00463.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wentzel KR, Battle A, Russell SL, Looney LB. Social supports from teachers and peers as predictors of academic and social motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2010; 35; 3: 193-202. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.03.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams GC, Deci EL. Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1996; 70; 4: 767-779. 10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.767</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zimmerman BJ. From cognitive modeling to self-regulation: A social cognitive career path. Educational Psychologist. 2013; 48; 3: 135-147. 10.1080/00461520.2013.794676</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0179690073-26"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> χ<sups>2</sups> (217) = 462.906, <emph>p</emph> <.001, RMSEA = 0.052, CFI = 0.94.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Helena Granziera; Rebecca J. Collie and Andrew J. Martin</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Rebecca J. Collie is a Scientia Associate Professor of Educational Psychology in the School of Education at the University of New South Wales, Australia. Rebecca conducts research in the broad areas of wellbeing, motivation, and social-emotional development using quantitative research methods.</p> <p>Andrew J. Martin is a Scientia Professor of Educational Psychology in the School of Education at the University of New South Wales, Australia. Andrew's research focuses on motivation, engagement, learning, and quantitative research methods.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib217" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref62"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1439588
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Role of Personal Best Goal Setting and Teaching Styles in Homework Behavior: An Academic Demands-Resources Perspective
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Helena+Granziera%22">Helena Granziera</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9628-7266">0000-0002-9628-7266</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rebecca+J%2E+Collie%22">Rebecca J. Collie</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Andrew+J%2E+Martin%22">Andrew J. Martin</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Social+Psychology+of+Education%3A+An+International+Journal%22"><i>Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal</i></searchLink>. 2024 27(4):2129-2142.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 14
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Goal+Orientation%22">Goal Orientation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Styles%22">Teaching Styles</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Homework%22">Homework</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Improvement%22">Student Improvement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Persistence%22">Academic Persistence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Predictor+Variables%22">Predictor Variables</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Behavior%22">Student Behavior</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s11218-024-09896-1
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1381-2890<br />1573-1928
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Personal best (PB) goal setting refers to the pursuit of individual improvement through striving to outperform a previous best level of performance or effort. Although promising evidence has been building, numerous empirical questions remain to be answered, including how PB goal setting may operate alongside various contextual predictors of academic functioning. Applying the Academic Demands-Resources (AD-R) framework, the present study examined how academic resources and demands (conceptualized by way of teachers' interpersonal styles: autonomy-supportive and psychologically-controlling/thwarting teaching) and personal resources (PB goal setting) are associated with parent reports of students' behavioral engagement (homework behavior). The study comprised 414 Australian secondary school students. Results of structural equation modeling revealed that PB goal setting significantly predicted positive homework behavior and also moderated the association between psychologically-controlling teaching practices and homework behavior, such that PB goal setting was associated with positive homework behavior under conditions of high demands. The present work highlights the potentially unique contribution of PB goal setting in facilitating students' adaptive engagement and demonstrates the utility of the AD-R framework for better understanding students' engagement in the academic context.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1439588
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1439588
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11218-024-09896-1
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 14
        StartPage: 2129
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Goal Orientation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Styles
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Homework
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Improvement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academic Persistence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Predictor Variables
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Behavior
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Role of Personal Best Goal Setting and Teaching Styles in Homework Behavior: An Academic Demands-Resources Perspective
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Helena Granziera
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rebecca J. Collie
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Andrew J. Martin
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1381-2890
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1928
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 27
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1