Research Papers in Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rred20

Whose goal emphases play a more important role

in ESL/EFL learners’ motivation, self-regulated
learning and achievement?: Teachers’ or parents’

Jing Wang & Barry Bai

To cite this article: Jing Wang & Barry Bai (2023) Whose goal emphases play a more important
role in ESL/EFL learners’ motivation, self-regulated learning and achievement?: Teachers’ or
parents’, Research Papers in Education, 38:4, 520-542, DOI: 10.1080/02671522.2022.2030395

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2022.2030395

Published online: 07 Feb 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 958

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rred20
RESEARCH PAPERS IN EDUCATION
2023, VOL. 38, NO. 4, 520–542
https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2022.2030395

Whose goal emphases play a more important role in ESL/EFL

learners’ motivation, self-regulated learning and
achievement?: Teachers’ or parents’
a b
Jing Wang and Barry Bai
a
College of Education, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China; bThe Chinese University of
Hong Kong, Ho Tim Building, Faculty of Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, N.T,
Hong Kong

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study examined the relations between achievement goals, self- Received 29 June 2021
regulated learning (SRL), and English learning achievement as well Accepted 12 January 2022
as the contributions of perceived teachers’ and parents’ goal KEYWORDS
emphases to students’ achievement goal adoption. Participants Achievement goals; teachers’
were 520 4th graders in Hong Kong, who learn English as and parents’ goal emphases;
a second or foreign language (ESL/EFL). Multivariate analyses of self-regulated learning;
variance (MANOVAs) revealed that high achievers reported a higher english as a second or
level of mastery goals and SRL strategy use than average achievers, foreign language (esl/efl);
who in turn outperformed low achievers. Mastery goals positively teaching and learning of esl/
predicted SRL strategy use, whereas performance-avoidance goals efl
negatively predicted SRL strategy use. SRL strategy use, in turn, was
a significant predictor of English learning achievement. Perceived
teachers’ and parents’ mastery goal emphases positively predicted
students’ mastery goals; parents’ performance goal emphases posi­
tively predicted students’ performance-approach and performance-
avoidance goals. Parents’ mastery goal emphases negatively pre­
dicted students’ performance-avoidance goals. Important implica­
tions are drawn.

Introduction
Motivation is recognised as a vital factor for enhancing language learning, which initiates
the learning process and determines the quality and intensity of cognition, behaviours,
and affection (Bai and Wang 2020; Lai, Zhu, and Gong 2015; Lamb 2017). As an
influential construct of motivation, achievement goals represent different criteria and
reasons for academic engagement (Pintrich, Conley, and Kempler 2003). Goals serve
a directional function, which guide the individual’s behaviour towards or away from
a specific end point of learning.
In recent years, self-regulated learning (SRL) has emerged as an important academic
and pedagogical inquiry in applied linguistics and TESOL (Bai and Wang 2020; Oxford
2011; Xiao and Yang 2019). As one of the 21st century skills, SRL targets to develop self-
dependent, goal-oriented, and autonomous lifelong learners (Teng and Zhang 2020;

CONTACT Barry Bai barry.bai@cuhk.edu.hk Faculty of EducationThe Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, N.
T. Hong Kong
© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 RESEARCH PAPERS IN EDUCATION 521

Trilling 2009). Students who are self-regulated set goals, monitor and control their
learning process, and make reactions constantly in line with these goals. Goal-
orientedness is the central tenet of SRL. As Pintrich (2000, 472) explained, ‘a key
assumption of all models of regulation is that some goal, standard, criterion, or reference
value exists that can serve as a gauge against which to assess the operation of the system
and then guide regulatory processes’. Although the importance of achievement goals has
been examined in general learning, there has been insufficient research attempting to
uncover the relations between achievement goals and SRL in the field of English as
a second or foreign language (ESL/EFL). This study will provide evidence for the
(positive or negative) roles of different achievement goals in Hong Kong primary ESL/
EFL learners’ SRL strategy use and achievement.
Further, there has been an increasing concern over the social and contextual influ­
ences on individual learners’ motivation. Students’ goals are shaped by teachers’ instruc­
tional practices, such as performance feedback, the non-competitive or competitive
evaluation, and outcome attributions, which can be termed as teachers’ goal emphases
or classroom goal structures, i.e., the goals stressed by teachers through classroom
practices (Ames 1992; Greene et al. 2004; Friedel et al. 2007; Meece, Anderman, and
Anderman 2006; Wang, King, and Rao 2019a; Wang and Rao 2019b).
However, the influences of teachers’ goal emphases on ESL/EFL learners’ achievement
goals, SRL and achievement have remained largely unexplored. It is especially crucial to
understand how teachers’ goal emphases influence motivation and SRL strategy use
among young ESL/EFL learners so that early classroom interventions and pedagogical
reforms can be made possible. On the other hand, our knowledge of family influences on
children’s achievement goals, SRL, and achievement in English learning is also scant. It is
important to identify clearly the roles that parents can play in shaping children’s
achievement goals and SRL so that parents can be better prepared to exert influence in
fostering their children’s adaptive language learning patterns. Using the achievement
goal theory framework, this study aimed to examine how contextual factors (i.e., teachers’
and parents’ goal emphases) influence Hong Kong primary ESL/EFL learners’ academic
achievement goals, SRL, and achievement. The study will shed light on how two
important contexts, i.e., classroom and family, may shape primary school ESL/EFL
learners’ adoption of achievement goals and influence their SRL strategy use and achieve­
ment. Importantly, the study will take students’ perceptions of teachers’ and parents’ goal
emphases into account simultaneously to investigate their relative contribution to ESL/
EFL learners’ goals, SRL, and achievement. These findings will be crucial for informing
theory, teachers’ and parents’ practices, and policy-making in ESL/EFL contexts.

Academic achievement goals

The achievement goal theory highlights two goal constructs, i.e., mastery goals (also
known as learning goals) with an intrinsic focus on improving competence and devel­
oping skills, and performance goals with an extrinsic focus on doing better than others
and demonstrating competence (Pintrich, Conley, and Kempler 2003). Performance
goals are further separated into approach and avoidance goals. Performance-approach
goals emphasise competence demonstration and outperforming others, whereas perfor­
mance-avoidance goals emphasise avoiding judgements of low ability or appearing
522 J. WANG AND B. BAI

stupid (Elliot 1999; Lou and Noels 2017; Moeller, Theiler, and Wu 2012). Dörnyei (2001)
proposed increasing the learner’s goal-orientedness as an important teaching objective,
and such individual goals as having fun, passing the exam or getting the minimum grade
to survive reflect the mastery goals, performance-approach goals, and performance-
avoidance goals, respectively.
Mastery and performance goals are linked with distinct ways of thinking about
learning and interpretation of success. Students with mastery goals focus on improve­
ment and the learning process, whereas students with performance goals focus on the
outcome (Hulleman et al. 2010). Lou and Noels (2017) proposed a model of mindsets-
goals-responses for language learning. Students who set mastery goals for language
learning tend to believe that language learning competence is malleable and they attribute
outcomes to controllable effort, so they are oriented to developing skills and improving
competence from an intrapersonal frame of reference. They tend to view challenges as
opportunities for learning and are more likely to persist and remain optimistic when
faced with setbacks. In contrast, students who set performance goals tend to believe that
the ability to learn a language is innate and view mistakes especially public ones as an ego
threat. They are more likely to feel anxious and helpless, and withdraw in the face of
difficulties or after a setback so as to preserve self-worth (Lou and Noels 2017; Moeller,
Theiler, and Wu 2012).
In the field of language learning, some studies have shown that mastery goals are
associated with a set of positive learning patterns, performance-approach goals are
associated with less adaptive outcomes, and performance-avoidance goals are asso­
ciated with negative learning patterns. Specifically, Woodrow (2006) found that mas­
tery goals were associated with positive language learning attitudes and oral test
performance, and performance-avoidance goals were linked with language anxiety.
Moeller, Theiler, and Wu (2012) study demonstrated that students’ mastery-oriented
goal-setting was significantly related to writing, speaking, and reading achievements in
standardised tests. However, the evidence about consequences of performance-
approach goals has been less consistent. Whereas some studies found that perfor­
mance-approach goals did not predict language learning achievements (Greene et al.
2004; Liem, Lau, and Nie 2008; Troia et al. 2013), others showed that performance-
approach goals led to decreased learning achievements (Lou and Noels 2017; Midgley,
Kaplan, and Middleton 2001). Researchers also found that performance-approach goals
may shift to performance-avoidance goals when learners experience continuous failures
(Brophy 2005).

Self-regulated learning
Pintrich (2000) defines SRL as ‘an active, constructive process whereby learners set goals
for their learning and then attempt to monitor, regulate, and control their cognition,
motivation and behavior’ (p. 453). SRL is also often described as a self-oriented feedback
loop, in which learners set personal goals, monitor and regulate their learning, evaluate
the quality of learning by comparing observed outcomes with preset goals, and make
reactions constantly to achieve goals (Zimmerman 1990). SRL is crucial for ESL/EFL
learners in non-English speaking countries or regions because they have limited exposure
to the target language in everyday settings and their English learning is largely limited to
 RESEARCH PAPERS IN EDUCATION 523

the classroom (Evans 2017; Kormos and Csizér 2014), which means that students need to
take great initiatives in learning rather than only relying on teachers to achieve desirable
learning achievements.
SRL is a major type of mechanisms in its own right as an indicator of students’ positive
functioning and is crucial for students’ progress and achievements (Fredricks,
Blumenfeld, and Paris 2004; Oxford 2011). To ensure an effective SRL process, the
learner needs to actively deploy a wide range of SRL strategies, which include but are
not limited to, 1) metacognitive self-regulation strategies that are used to plan, monitor,
evaluate, and adjust learning (Dabarera, Renandya, and Zhang 2014; Sato and Loewen
2018), 2) effort regulation strategies that are concerned with students’ continued invest­
ment and persistence in language learning when they encounter setbacks (Bai and Wang
2020; Liem, Lau, and Nie 2008), and 3) self-initiation that refers to students’ doing extra
work and going beyond the requirement, such as self-initiated reading and writing,
seeking learning resources, and seeking opportunities to practice English (Bai and
Wang 2020; Zhang, Thomas, and Qin 2019). Many studies have confirmed the essential
role of SRL strategy use in promoting students’ language learning achievements (Bai and
Wang 2020; Nisbet, Tindall, and Arroyo 2005; Sato and Loewen 2018). For example, Bai
and Wang (2020) found that metacognitive strategies and effort regulation strategies
were significant predictors of English learning achievements among Hong Kong primary
ESL/EFL learners. Research has also shown that metacognitive strategy instruction
enhanced students’ metacognitive awareness and improved language learning achieve­
ments (Dabarera, Renandya, and Zhang 2014; Sato and Loewen 2018).
From a socio-cognitive perspective, achievement goals target the reasons for academic
engagement and success criteria, and are supposed to promote and sustain SRL (Pintrich
2003). However, scant attention has been paid to the relations between achievement goals
and SRL in EFL/ESL contexts. Only a few studies have uncovered the relations between
achievement goals and the use of one or two types of SRL strategies, such as effort
regulation (Liem, Lau, and Nie 2008; Woodrow 2006) and metacognitive strategies (Shyr
et al. 2017). For example, Liem, Lau, and Nie’s (2008) survey study of Singaporean
students showed that mastery goals were negatively related to task disengagement
(negatively worded items of effort regulation), whereas performance-avoidance goals
were associated with task disengagement and decreased English test performance, but the
correlation between performance-approach goals and task disengagement was not sig­
nificant, implying that students’ intention to outperform others and avoid judgements of
low ability or appearing stupid did not promote SRL to the same degree. There is still
a lack of research into the impacts of achievement goals on the use of various types of SRL
strategies. Given the importance of SRL in language learning, it is of the utmost
importance to identify goals that can promote students’ SRL.

Influences of teachers’ goal emphases on students’ achievement goals

Motivation is influenced by contextual factors. Students are sensitive to the emphases
that teachers place on different types of goals through the classroom practices, particu­
larly teachers’ expectation, performance feedback, evaluation and recognition, and out­
come attributions (Ames 1992; Greene et al. 2004). In general, research shows that
students’ mastery goals are triggered by teachers’ explicit expectation of students’
524 J. WANG AND B. BAI

learning skills and improving competence, evaluation that is private and based on self-
referenced criteria, recognition of improvement, and effort attribution (Patrick, Kaplan,
and Ryan 2011). Performance goals are trigged by teachers’ expectation of students’
performing well compared with others, public comparison, emphasis on high marks, and
ability attribution (Patrick, Kaplan, and Ryan 2011; Urdan and Schoenfelder 2006).
Although researchers in the field of ESL/EFL did not make explicit references to the
achievement goal theory framework, they proposed motivational strategies in language
instruction that actually promoted mastery goals (Bai and Wang 2020; Cheng and
Dörnyei 2007; Lou and Noels 2017). This distinct strand of second language (L2)
motivation research has emphasised growth mindset and effort attribution. Students’
growth mindset (beliefs that language competence can be improved through effort)
predicts more persistence and less helpless responses in the face of setbacks (Bai and
Wang 2020; Lou and Noels 2017). Thus, teachers are encouraged to promote students’
growth mindset and treat mistakes and failure situations as opportunities to further
develop competence. In addition, Cheng and Dörnyei’s (2007) survey of 387 English
teachers in Taiwan showed that the teachers placed a high value on promoting effort
attributions and recognising students’ effort and improvement. Likewise, Guilloteaux’s
(2013) study showed that South Korean secondary school EFL teachers attached impor­
tance to effort attribution, encouraging students to try hard, and recognising students’
effort and progress. On the other hand, researchers also proposed the necessity to play
down competition and social comparison in language classrooms (Dörnyei 2001), which
actually reduced performance goals. For L2 learners, it is common to experience failures,
but speaking and communications in an L2 in the classroom would expose their mistakes
frequently, which causes anxiety and frustration. Social comparison, public criticism, and
teachers’ emphasis on demonstrating ability, outperforming others and avoiding making
mistakes can exaggerate students’ anxiety and frustration. It is therefore necessary to
create a warm and supportive classroom that directs students towards mastery goals and
avoids performance goals.
The practical recommendations and implications for promoting mastery goals and
playing down performance goals might be of great value to ESL/EFL learners. However,
there has been a lack of empirical studies investigating the impacts of teachers’ motiva­
tional strategies or teachers’ goal emphases on EFL/EFL learners’ motivation, SRL, and
achievement (Guilloteaux and Dörnyei 2008). More empirical investigations are needed
to provide solid theoretical considerations for pedagogical interventions.

Influences of perceived parents’ goal emphases on students’ achievement

goals
From an ecological point of view, both the classroom and family contexts are impor­
tant environments in which children interact with teachers and parents. The interac­
tions may influence their achievement goals and learning (Friedel et al. 2007).
Currently, ESL/EFL education has long been introduced into the primary school
curriculum in many countries and regions, and children begin to learn an L2 at
a young age. Family as an immediate environment exerts strong influences on young
students’ language motivation and achievements (Kata, Judit, and Ágnes 2010;
Kormos, Kiddle, and Csizér 2011). When parents communicate with their children,
 RESEARCH PAPERS IN EDUCATION 525

they are very likely to express expectations, explain the importance of language
learning, and transmit their criteria of success (Daniel, Halimi, and AlShammari
2018; Kormos, Kiddle, and Csizér 2011), all of which may influence children’s adoption
of achievement goals.
Daniel, Halimi, and AlShammari (2018) found that ESL/EFL learners reported a high
level of parental encouragement (e.g., stressing the importance of English learning).
Parents may encourage their children to improve competence, develop skills, enjoy
learning, and focus on the learning process, or they may encourage their children to
demonstrate competence and outperform others (Gonida, Kiosseoglou, and Voulala
2007; Kim 2015). Research in the fields of general learning and mathematics learning
showed that students’ perceptions of parents’ mastery goal emphases predicted their own
mastery goals, and that their perceptions of parents’ performance goal emphases pre­
dicted both performance-approach goals and performance-avoidance goals (Friedel et al.
2007; Kim and Chung 2012). For example, Gonida, Voulala, and Kiosseoglou (2009)
found that perceived teachers’ and parents’ mastery goal emphases predicted children’s
mastery goals, which in turn, predicted effort regulation in general learning. Gonida et al.
(2014) found that students’ perceived parents’ goal emphases predicted their help-
seeking behaviours through the mediation of their own achievement goals in
mathematics.
Notably, parents’ goal emphases may be particularly relevant to Asian students’
motivation and achievements. Asian parents, especially Chinese parents, stress the
importance of academic achievements to their children (Kim 2015; Kim and Chung
2012). Moreover, due to the Confucian filial piety (responsibility for children to
respect, care for, and bring honour to the family), Asian children are more likely to
adopt parents’ goal emphases as their own than American children (Iyengar and
Lepper 1999; Qu, Pomerantz, and Deng 2016). Researchers found that Chinese children
held parent-oriented goals, i.e., desire to do well in academic situations to gain parents’
approval and meet parents’ expectations (Cheung and Pomerantz 2012; Wang, King,
and Rao 2019a). The calls to examine Asian parents’ influences on their children’s
academic motivation are becoming increasingly prevalent (Gonida, Kiosseoglou, and
Voulala 2007; Kim 2015). Thus, parents’ goal emphases may be essential in influencing
Hong Kong primary school ESL/EFL learners’ English learning through shaping their
achievement goals and SRL. Whereas increasing attention has been devoted to teachers’
instructional practices, research investigating parents’ influences on their children’s
motivation and achievement in ESL/EFL has been scant. Little is known about parents’
goal emphases in their children’s English learning and its impacts on SRL strategy use
and achievement. Further, there is a lack of studies investigating how teachers’ and
parents’ goal emphases work together to predict ESL/EFL learners’ achievement goals,
SRL, and achievements. Exploring how teachers’ and parents’ goal emphases may
contribute to ESL/EFL learners’ adoption of goals should provide important implica­
tions on teachers’ and parents’ practices to promote young children’s positive learning
patterns.
To sum up, there has been a lack of research on the relationships between teachers’
and parents’ goal emphases, achievement goals, SRL strategy use, and achievements in
ESL/EFL contexts. This study will investigate how achievement goals may influence the
use of a wide range of SRL strategies in EFL/ESL contexts. The present study will also
526 J. WANG AND B. BAI

investigate how teachers’ and parents’ goal emphases may shape students’ adoption of
achievement goals. To achieve the research purposes, the following three questions
guided our study:

(1) What are the differences in the achievement goals and SRL strategy use between
high, average, and low achievers?
(2) What are the impacts of academic achievement goals on SRL strategy use?
(3) What are the impacts of perceived teachers’ and parents’ goal emphases on
students’ achievement goals, SRL strategy use and achievements?

Figure 1 presents the theoretical model. It shows that achievement goals mediate the
relations between perceived English teachers’ and parents’ goal emphases, on one side,
and SRL and achievements, on the other. Specifically, it is hypothesised that teachers’ and
parents’ mastery goal emphases positively predict students’ mastery goals, and that
teachers’ and parents’ performance goal emphases positively predict students’ perfor­
mance-approach goals and performance-avoidance goals. These paths are indicated by
solid lines. Moreover, the model will also explore the possible relations among goal
structures and achievement goals other than its matching ones, such as the paths from
teachers’ and parents’ mastery goal emphases to students’ performance goals, and the
paths from teachers’ and parents’ performance goal emphases to students’ mastery goals.
These paths are indicated by dotted lines. Students’ achievement goals, in turn, will
predict their SRL and achievements. It is hypothesised that mastery goals have positive
impacts on Hong Kong ESL/EFL learners’ SRL, whereas the impacts of performance-
avoidance goals are negative. The study will also explore the plausible relation between
performance-approach goals and SRL strategy use. The path from performance-
approach goals to SRL strategy use is indicated by a dotted line because the impacts of
performance-approach goals are largely inconclusive.

Contextual factors Academic achievement goals English language English language

learning activities learning achievement

Classroom
mastery goals Mastery goals

Classroom
performance
goals
Performance- SRL strategy English test
avoidance use scores
goals

Parent
mastery goals

Performance-
Parent approach
performance goals
goals

Figure 1. The theoretical model showing the relations between teachers’ and parents’ goal emphases,
achievement goals, SRL strategy use, and English learning achievement.
 RESEARCH PAPERS IN EDUCATION 527

Methods
Participants
Participants were 520 4th graders in Hong Kong, including 268 girls (51.5%) and 252 boys
(48.5%), 8–11 years old, mean = 9.10, SD = .53. These students were almost exclusively
Cantonese speakers. They began to systematically learn English after entering primary
school. Hong Kong primary schools are suggested to allocate 404 to 499 hours to English
language education for primary 1–6 students per year (Curriculum Development
Council 2017). Seven to ten English lessons of 35–40 minutes are set for students each
week. In Hong Kong primary schools, English learning in primary 1–3 is fun because the
lessons are generally activities- and games-based. However, English learning becomes
increasingly teacher-centred and challenging in primary 4–6, with a great amount of
drilling, which kills students’ motivation (Bai 2021). Therefore, the present study aimed
to understand primary 4 students’ English learning in terms of the relationships between
their teachers’ and parents’ goal emphases, achievement goals, SRL and achievement.

Procedures
After obtaining ethical clearance, invitations were sent out to 30 government-funded
primary schools in Hong Kong, and seven agreed to participate in the study. These seven
schools were all co-educational and the majority of the students came from the working-
class families because the participating schools were located in the public housing estates.
Then consent was obtained from the English teachers and students’ parents. The students
were informed that their data was for research only and would be kept confidential. First,
the students responded to a questionnaire in the middle of Term 1 to report their
achievement goals and perceptions of teachers’ and parents’ goal emphases. These
items were scored on a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) through 5 (strongly
agree). Second, they completed another questionnaire on SRL strategy use after six
months, in which they were asked to rate the frequency of SRL strategy use on
a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (never) through 5 (always). Third, the students also
completed a standardised English achievement test at the end of Term 2, which took
around 30–40 min. Both the survey and the English test were administered by the
students’ English teachers in English lessons. All items in the questionnaire were specific
to the domain of English language learning and were translated from English into
Chinese to better facilitate the questionnaire administration as the participants’ mother
tongue was Cantonese.

Measures
Perceived teachers’ goal emphases. To measure students’ perceived teachers’ goal
emphases, we used items adapted from Midgley et al.’s (2000) Patterns of Adaptive
Learning Scales (PALS). The teachers’ mastery goal emphases subscale (α = .78) had
four items, which asked the students whether they were expected by their English
teachers to understand materials, improve competence, learn from errors, and try hard
in English lessons. A sample item was ‘My English teacher would like me to make
improvements.’ The teachers’ performance goal emphases subscale (α = .60) had five
528 J. WANG AND B. BAI

items, which asked the students whether they were expected by their English teacher to
get high scores and to outperform others, and whether there were public comparisons in
English lessons. A sample item was ‘My English teacher would like me to get high scores
in tests.’
Perceived parents’ goal emphases. To measure students’ perceived parents’ goal
emphases, we used items adapted from Friedel et al. (2007). The perceived parents’
mastery goal emphases subscale (α = .76) had five items that asked the children whether
they were expected by their parents to understand materials, learn from errors, attempt
challenging problems, and work hard in English learning. A sample item was ‘My parents
would like me to do challenging English class work even if I make mistakes.’ The
perceived parents’ performance goal emphases subscale (α = .70) had three items that
asked the children whether they were expected by their parents to demonstrate ability
and do well compared with others. A sample item was ‘My parents would like me to show
others that I am good at English class work.’
Achievement goals. The items on students’ achievement goals were adapted from
Midgley et al. (2000) and Wang, King, and Rao (2019a). The mastery goals subscale had
four items (α = .81) that measured students’ intention to develop skills and improve
competence. A sample item was ‘One of my goals is to master a lot of new skills in English
this year.’ The performance-approach goals subscale (α = .85) had five items that
measured students’ intention to demonstrate ability and to outperform others.
A sample item was ‘One of my goals is to look smart in English learning in comparison
to other students in my class.’ The performance-avoidance goals subscale (α = .76) had
four items that measured students’ intention to avoid appearing stupid or being judged
negatively. A sample item was ‘One of my goals in class is to avoid looking like I have
trouble doing the English work.’
SRL strategy use. To measure students’ use of SRL strategy, we used 19 items adapted
from Bai and Wang (2020) and King, McInerney, and Watkins (2012). There were three
items about planning (α = .87, e.g., ‘I set a concrete English learning plan for myself.’),
three items about monitoring (α = .72, e.g., ‘When studying English, I try to determine
which concepts I don’t understand well.’), four items about self-evaluation (α = .78, e.g.,
‘After finishing the English composition, I will check it again.’), three items about effort
regulation (α = .82, e.g., ‘Even when English learning materials are dull and uninteresting,
I keep studying until I finish.’), and six items about self-initiation (α = .83, e.g., ‘I actively
search for English learning resources.’).
English learning achievement. The students’ English learning achievement was
assessed by a standardised English proficiency test. Three experienced primary school
English teachers designed the test and ensured that it was appropriate for determin­
ing the English level of our participants and checked the validity and clarity. The test
included multiple-choice questions on vocabulary (15 points), word reading (15
points), passage comprehension (12 points), sentence comprehension (10 points),
and listening comprehension (7 points). A total score for each student was derived
by summing up the five parts, ranging from 0 to 59. To test the discrimination power
of the standardised test, we compared the differences of the test scores between the
high achievers (one standard deviation above the mean, Score ≥ 39.26, n = 91) and
low achievers (one standard deviation below the mean, Score ≤ 20.92, n = 96). T-tests
showed that the high achievers and low achievers performed significantly differently
 RESEARCH PAPERS IN EDUCATION 529

in the total score (t = 47.79, p < .001), and each of the five parts of the test. The
difficulty degree of the test was .51, and the average discrimination power (D value)
of the test was .46, which was excellent according to Ebel and Frisbie’s (1986)
classification of the discrimination power (> .39 was excellent).

Data analyses
First, confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) using Mplus 7.0 were conducted to confirm the
measurement properties of the instruments. Second, we conducted descriptive analysis
and correlation analysis. Third, to answer the first research question, two multivariate
analyses of variance (MANOVAs) were performed to examine the differences between the
high, average, and low achievers in terms of achievement goals and SRL strategy use,
respectively. Fourth, to answer the second research question, structural equation model­
ling (SEM) was conducted to examine the relations between academic achievement goals
and SRL strategy use. Fifth, to answer the third research question, another SEM was
conducted to examine the impacts of teachers’ and parents’ goal emphases on students’
achievement goals, SRL strategy use and English learning achievement.

Results
Confirmatory factor analyses
Three CFAs were conducted for the achievement goals, teachers’ and parents’ goal
emphases, and SRL strategy use, respectively. We adopted maximum likelihood robust
estimation (MLR, TYPE = COMPLEX) for analysis because it was robust to non-
independence of observations (students nested in classrooms). A variety of goodness-
of-fit statistics were used as indices for model evaluation, including the Satorra-Bentler
corrected x2 statistics, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), Tucker-Lewis
index (TLI), comparative fit index (CFI), and standardised root mean square residual
(SRMR). TLI and CFI values from 0.90 to 0.95 indicate an acceptable fit, and values from
0.95 to 1.00 indicate an excellent fit. RMSEA values from 0.05 to 0.08 indicate an
adequate fit, while values from 0 to 0.05 indicate an excellent fit. SRMR values from
0.05 to 0.08 indicate a good fit, and values from 0 to 0.05 indicate an excellent fit. The fit
indices were satisfactory for all the CFA models (see Table 1). All loadings were
significant at p < .001, and the majority of factor loadings were higher than .60.

Descriptive statistics and correlation analyses

According to the participants’ reports, both teachers and parents had more mastery-
oriented practices than performance-oriented practices. The participants maintained
a high level of mastery goals (M = 3.81, SD = 1.01), and a low level of performance-
approach goals (M = 2.37, SD = 1.08) and performance-avoidance goals (M = 2.56,
SD = 1.11). They reported a medium level of SRL strategy use, including planning
(M = 3.05, SD = 1.17), monitoring (M = 3.27, SD = .89), self-evaluation (M = 3.40,
SD = 1.00), effort regulation (M = 3.25, SD = .68), and self-initiation (M = 3.32, SD = .88).
530 J. WANG AND B. BAI

Table 1. Goodness of fit indices for the CFA and SEM (N = 520).
SB- x2 df CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR
Recommended value > .90 > .90 < .08 < .08
1. CFA for achievement goals model 129.70 62 .981 .976 .032, 90% CI [.019, .045] .040
2. CFA for teachers’ and parents’ goal emphases 263.18 98 .926 .910 .051, 90% CI [.043, .060] .055
model
3. CFA for SRL strategy model 426.81 142 .948 .938 .054, 90% CI [.047, .061] .040
4.SEM – The impacts of academic achievement 736.36 434 .968 .964 .030, 90% CI [.025, .035] .036
goals on SRL strategy use
5. SEM- The impacts of contextual variables 1909.26 1098 .932 .927 .034, 90% CI [.031, .037] .048
on goals, SRL strategy use, and achievement

Table 2 shows the correlations between the variables. The students’ mastery goals were
positively related to SRL strategy use (.32 ≤ rs ≤ .40, p < .01), and the English test scores
(r = .26, p < .01). Performance-approach goals were weakly related to SRL strategy use.
The correlations between performance-avoidance goals and SRL strategy use were not
significant. As for the relations between the contextual variables and the students’
achievement goals, teachers’ mastery goal emphases (r = .62, p < .01) and parents’
mastery goal emphases (r = .58, p < .01) were strongly and positively related to the
students’ mastery goals. Parents’ performance goal emphases were moderately and
positively related to the students’ performance-approach (r = .51, p < .01) and perfor­
mance-avoidance goals (r = .44, p < .01), whereas teachers’ performance goal emphases
were weakly and positively related to the students’ performance-approach (r = .34,
p < .01) and performance-avoidance goals (r = .19, p < .01).
Differences between the high, average and low achievers in academic achievement
goals and SRL strategy use
The students were categorised as high (n = 91, Mean = 44.28, SD = 4.52), average
(n = 91, Mean = 29.88, SD = 4.46), and low achievers (n = 96, Mean = 17.375, SD = 2.97)
according to their English test scores. The first MANOVA was used to examine the
differences in mastery goals, performance-approach goals, and performance-avoidance
goals between the groups. There was an overall effect of English competence groups on
the different types of goals (Wilks’s λ = .938, F [6, 1024] = 5.553, p < .001). Significant
differences were found among the three groups of students in their mastery goals
(F = 14.105, partial η2 = .051, p < .001) (see Figure 2). The high achievers generally
reported a higher level of mastery goals than the average achievers, who in turn out­
performed the low achievers. Although there were no significant group differences in
performance-avoidance goals, the high achievers reported a lower level of performance-
avoidance goals than the average achievers and low achievers. The three groups reported
a similar level of performance-approach goals.
Another MANOVA was conducted to compare SRL strategy use between the groups.
There was an overall effect of competence groups on SRL strategy use (Wilks’s λ = .874,
F [10, 1004] = 6.974, p < .001, partial η2 = .065). Figure 3 presents the mean differences in
SRL strategy use among the high, average, and low achievers. The high achievers reported
a significantly higher level of SRL strategy use than the average achievers, who in turn
outperformed the low achievers. There were significant differences among the three English
competence groups, including planning (F = 9.578, partial η2 = .036) and self-monitoring
(F = 13.160, partial η2 = .049), self-evaluation (F = 22.959, partial η2 = .083), effort
regulation (F = 6.231, partial η2 = .024), and self-initiation (F = 28.868, partial η2 = .102).
Table 2. Correlations for the measures at the individual level (N = 520).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Teachers’ mastery goal emphases 1
2. Teachers’ performance goal emphases .41** 1
3. Parent s’ mastery goal emphases .49** .37** 1
4. Parents’ performance goal emphases .18** .35** .29** 1
5. Mastery goals .62** .37** .58** .24** 1
6. Performance-approach goals .17** .34** .24** .51** .29** 1
7. Performance-avoidance goals .09* .19** .11* .44** .13** .60** 1
8. Planning .26** .11* .26** .12** .37** .13** .01 1
9. Monitoring .31** .13** .29** .08 .39** .13** .01 .66** 1
10. Self-evaluation .35** .15** .25** .09* .36** .10* −.06 .59** .61** 1
11. Effort regulation .30** .13** .18** .05 .32** .07 −.06 .63** .63** .59** 1
12. Self-initiation .34** .13** .31** .06 .40** .10* −.04 .70** .67** .74** .60** 1
13. English test scores .27** .20** .25** .06 .26** −.01 −.07 .20** .26** .30** .19** .37** 1
Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
RESEARCH PAPERS IN EDUCATION
531
532 J. WANG AND B. BAI

6.00 p < .001

SD = .94
SD = .98
5.00
SD = 1.05
4.14
3.84 SD = 1.06
4.00 SD = 1.05 SD = 1.19
3.39 SD = 1.07 SD = 1.18 SD = 1.10

3.00 2.70 2.55

2.40 2.37 2.36 2.49

2.00

1.00

0.00
Ma stery goals Performance-approach goals Performance-avoidance goals

Low achievers Average achievers High achievers

Figure 2. Mean differences in achievement goals among the high, average and low achievers in
English learning.

p < .001 p < .001 p < .001 p = .002 p < .001

5.00 SD = .90
SD = 1.18 SD = .98 SD = .79
4.50 SD = .86 SD = .60
SD = 1.17 SD = .88 SD = .85
SD = .65
4.00 SD = .98 SD = .82 3.77
SD = 1.02 SD = .85 3.73 SD = .81
3.51 3.47 3.39
3.50 3.36 3.30 3.26 3.34
3.08 3.04
3.00 2.88 2.82 2.83
2.63
2.50

2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Planning Monitoring Self-evaluation Effort regulation Self-initiation

Low achievers Average achievers High achievers

Figure 3. Mean differences in SRL strategy use among the high, average and low achievers in English
learning.

The impacts of academic achievement goals on SRL strategy use

The first SEM tested the direct paths from achievement goals to SRL strategy use. The
model shown in Figure 4 had an excellent fit: SB- x2 = 736.356, df = 434, CFI = .968,
TLI = .964, SRMR = .036, and RMSEA = .030, 90% CI [.025, .035]. Mastery goals
positively predicted all five types of SRL strategies. In contrast, their performance-
avoidance goals negatively predicted self-evaluation, effort regulation, and self-
initiation. The impacts of performance-approach goals on SRL strategy use were not
significant. The model explained 21.1% of the variance in planning, 26.4% of the variance
in monitoring, 26.4% of the variance in self-evaluation, 30.4% of the variance in effort
regulation, and 25.0% of the variance self-initiation. Moreover, the SEM also indicated
strong correlations among the five types of SRL strategies (.70 ≤ rs ≤ .93, p < .01).
 RESEARCH PAPERS IN EDUCATION 533

Planning
.426***

Mastery goals
.492***
Monitoring
.466***

Performance- Self-
-.258**
avoidance evaluation
goals -.217*
.529***

Effort
-.202* regulation
Performance-
approach .472***
goals
Self-initiation

Figure 4. The model of the relations between achievement goals and SRL strategy use in English
learning. Significant paths are presented in solid lines. Insignificant paths are presented in dotted
lines. Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Self- Effort Self-

Planning Monitoring regulation initiation
evaluation

Teacher mastery
goal emphases .558*** Mastery goals

.530***
Teacher
performance
goal emphases
Performance- SRL strategy English test
.371*** avoidance -.225* .364***
use scores
goals
-.164*
Parent mastery
goal emphases

.633*** Performance-
Parent approach
.608***
performance goals
goal emphases

Figure 5. An SEM model depicting the relations between perceived teachers’ and parents’ goal
emphases, achievement goals, SRL strategy use, and English learning achievement. Significant
paths are presented in solid lines. Insignificant paths are presented in dotted lines. Note. *p < .05,
**p < .01, ***p < .001.
534 J. WANG AND B. BAI

The impacts of teachers’ and parents’ goal emphases

The second SEM tested the theoretical model that contextual factors (teacher and
parent goal emphases) predict ESL/EFL learners’ achievement goals, which in turn
predict SRL strategy use and achievement. We created a high order construct of SRL
strategy use to avoid the multicollinearity in SEM (Licht, 1995). The model shown
in Figure 5 had an acceptable fit: SB- x2 = 1909.255, df = 1098, CFI = .932,
TLI = .927, SRMR = .048, and RMSEA = .034, 90% CI [.031, .037]. The students’
mastery goals were positively predicted by both perceived teachers’ mastery goal
emphases (γ = .558) and perceived parents’ mastery goal emphases (γ = .371). The
students’ performance-approach goals (γ = .608) and performance-avoidance goals
(γ = .633) were positively predicted by perceived parents’ performance goal
emphases but were not predicted by perceived teachers’ performance goal emphases.
Notably, the students’ performance-avoidance goals were also negatively predicted
by parents’ mastery goal emphases. Like the paths in Figure 4, the students’ mastery
goals positively predicted SRL strategy use (γ = .520), whereas performance-
avoidance goals negatively predicted SRL strategy use (γ = −.225). The students’
SRL strategy use, in turn, positively predicted the English test scores (γ = .364). The
model explained 72.5% of the variance in mastery goals, 47.4% of the variance in
performance-approach goals, 36.5% of the variance in performance-avoidance goals,
and 13.2% of the variance in English learning achievement.

Discussion
The present study had three objectives, namely, to examine the differences in achieve­
ment goals and SRL strategy use between ESL/EFL learners of different English compe­
tence groups, to test the impacts of the achievement goals on students’ SRL strategy use,
and to determine if contextual factors influence students’ achievement goals. A key
contribution of the present study is the strong evidence that both teachers’ and parents’
goal emphases are crucial to students’ adoption of achievement goals in ESL/EFL con­
texts (Kata, Judit, and Ágnes 2010; Kormos, Kiddle, and Csizér 2011). More importantly,
the present study is one of the first empirical studies showing that both teachers’ and
parents’ practices shape ESL/EFL learners’ academic motivation but in different manners.
Specifically, the students’ mastery goals were positively predicted by both teachers’ and
parents’ mastery goal emphases. The finding is consistent with previously reported
findings that mastery-oriented classroom practices contributed to students’ adoption of
mastery goals (Patrick, Kaplan, and Ryan 2011; Urdan and Schoenfelder 2006). The
results provide support to teachers’ motivational strategies proposed by various research­
ers, such as effort attribution and encouraging students to try hard (Bai and Wang 2020;
Lou and Noels 2017), and recognising students’ effort and progress (Cheng and Dörnyei
2007; Guilloteaux and Dörnyei 2008). More importantly, the students’ perceptions of
parents’ mastery goal emphases stood out as another significant predictor of their
mastery goals. That means, parents’ emphases on mastery goals are essential to children’s
adoption of mastery goals. This finding is especially important as parents’ role in
influencing their children’ motivation in language learning has been largely
underexplored.
 RESEARCH PAPERS IN EDUCATION 535

The students’ performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals were pre­

dicted by only parents’ performance goal emphases but not teachers’ performance goal
emphases. In other words, parents, instead of teachers, influence their children’s perfor­
mance goals in English learning. Previous studies have also shown that parents’ perfor­
mance goal emphases predicted children’s performance-approach and performance-
avoidance goals in other disciplines (Gonida, Kiosseoglou, and Voulala 2007; Gonida,
Voulala, and Kiosseoglou 2009). It is also noteworthy that parents’ mastery goal
emphases had a negative impact on children’s performance-avoidance goals. When
parents emphasise skills and competence development, their children are less likely to
adopt performance-avoidance goals, which signifies the positive role of parents’ mastery
goal emphases again. Despite the positive correlations between teachers’ performance
goal emphases and the students’ performance goals in the correlation analysis, the
impacts of teachers’ performance goal emphases on the students’ performance goals
were not significant in SEM. Some previous studies have indicated that teachers’ perfor­
mance goal emphases contributed to students’ performance goals, but has not taken into
consideration controlling parental influences in the model (Patrick, Kaplan, and Ryan
2011; Urdan and Schoenfelder 2006). The present study investigated simultaneously the
impacts of both teachers’ and parent’ influences in the same model, which offered
insights into the comparative contributions of these factors to students’ goal adoptions.
The results showed that compared to teachers’ performance goal emphases, parents’
emphases on performance goals had stronger impacts on students’ performance goals.
Friedel et al.’s (2007) study also showed that students’ performance goals were predicted
by perceived parents’ performance goal emphases but not teachers’ performance goal
emphases. There are two possible explanations for the relative more important role of
parents’ goal emphases in their children’s performance goal adoption. First, our partici­
pants were primary school students who may be highly dependent on parents’ goal
emphases and expectations (Friedel et al. 2007; Gonida, Voulala, and Kiosseoglou 2009).
Whereas students are influenced by different teachers at schools, parents can convey
more stable goal-related messages to children at home. Second, prior research indicates
that students from Confucian-heritage cultures are more likely to adopt parents’ goal
emphases as their own than American children due to the filial piety tradition (Iyengar
and Lepper 1999; Qu, Pomerantz, and Deng 2016). When parents expect their chidlren’s
demonstrating competence and doing well compared with others, their children are very
likely to adopt performance-approach goals and performance-avoidance goals. For
example, Wang, King, and Rao (2019a) found that Chinese students sought to fulfill
parents’ expectations and gain parent’ approval (i.e., parent-oriented goals). Therefore,
the present study underscores the unique importance of parents’ goal emphases to their
children’s achievement goals as compared to their children’s English teachers’ goal
emphases.
Whereas achievement goal theory has been applied to understanding learners’ moti­
vation in other disciplines, the present study provides important empirical evidence for
the crucial role of achievement goals in SRL strategy use in the field of ESL/EFL. Mastery
goals were found to be a positive predictor of SRL strategy use for Hong Kong primary
ESL/EFL learners. That is, ESL/EFL learners who focus on learning skills and improving
competence are more likely to be self-regulated in learning the language. By contrast,
performance-avoidance goals had negative impacts on the students’ SRL strategy use.
536 J. WANG AND B. BAI

ESL/EFL learners who focus on avoiding negative judgements or appearing stupid are
less likely to have self-evaluations of the quality or progress of their English learning, and
are less behaviourally engaged. In addition, they are more likely to give up in the face of
challenging situations. The finding echoes previous findings that performance-avoidance
goals are associated with a negative set of processes and outcomes, such as self-
handicapping and disruptive behaviours (Liem, Lau, and Nie 2008; Moeller, Theiler,
and Wu 2012; Wang, King, and Rao 2019a; Woodrow 2006). The students with perfor­
mance-avoidance goals may view failures as a threat to their egos and try to externalise
(or excuse) failures so as to avoid appearing dumb to others or themselves (Urdan 2004).
The present study showed that performance-approach goals did not significantly influ­
ence ESL/EFL learners’ SRL strategy use and learning achievement. In general, research
suggests a superior influence of mastery goals to performance goals. Prior studies have
shown either a negative relation or no relation between performance-approach goals and
adaptive variables (Greene et al. 2004; Liem, Lau, and Nie 2008; Troia et al. 2013). Our
study highlights the need to promote mastery goals and to deemphasize performance
goals among primary ESL/EFL learners so as to enhance SRL and achievement.
Last but not least, the present study confirmed a positive link between the mastery
goals, SRL strategy use, and English learning achievement among primary school ESL/
EFL learners. An early identification of primary students’ goals will create a long-lasting
effect on their learning. MANOVAs revealed that the high achievers generally reported
a higher level of mastery goals and more SRL strategy use than the average achievers, who
in turn outperformed the low achievers. The finding that the students of different English
competence groups differed in their mastery goals is aligned with Troia et al.’s (2013) and
Moeller, Theiler, and Wu’s (2012) findings in that mastery goals are a significant pre­
dictor of English learning achievements. The findings are also in line with previous
studies that indicate a positive role of SRL (Bai and Wang 2020; Oxford 2011; Xiao and
Yang 2019).

Implications
Academic achievement goal theory serves as a suitable framework to understand tea­
chers’ and parents’ influences on students’ motivation, SRL, and achievement in language
learning. The study identifies teachers’ and parents’ goal emphases as two key ingredients
of students’ achievement goal development. More crucially, parents’ goal emphases
appear to play a superior role in their children’s achievement goals to their English
teachers’ in the present study, which was situated in Hong Kong, a typical Asian ESL/EFL
context. Hence, it is important for future research to systematically investigate achieve­
ment goals, and to pay attention to both teachers’ and parents’ practices to promote
adaptive motivation and SRL strategy use in the field of language learning.
The present study also offers practical implications based on solid theoretical con­
siderations. Given the positive role of mastery goals in ESL/EFL learners’ learning, it is
necessary to enhance students’ mastery goals. Based on the findings, classroom and
family emphases should be given to mastery learning and skill development. While
giving performance feedback, teachers and parents should recognise students’ improve­
ment and encourage them to set mastery-oriented goals based on self-referenced criteria.
Students’ improvement should be attributed to effort rather than ability. When students
 RESEARCH PAPERS IN EDUCATION 537

make mistakes, English teachers should encourage them to view mistakes as a part of
learning and not to be afraid of making mistakes, rather than focusing on correcting
students’ grammar or pronunciation mistakes only. They should also let students under­
stand that teachers care about students’ learning and want them to make progress with
good efforts.
The study highlights that parents’ performance goal emphases predict students’
performance-avoidance goals as the least adaptive type of achievement goals. The culture
of classrooms has been described as performance oriented in some Asian societies, such
as Hong Kong and the mainland China, given the current reality in these societies where
students’ further education opportunities are tied to how well they do in exams (Lee and
Coniam 2013). Particularly, there is an overt emphasis on testing and evaluation in
English learning due to the multiple standardised proficiency tests (Cheng et al. 2014).
Now that the focus on outwardly demonstrating competence is ubiquitous, parents
should be aware of the negative impacts of performance-avoidance goals and should be
cautious in conveying performance goal messages to their children. Parents should avoid
comparing children with their peers, giving criticisms over mistakes and failures in
exams, or exaggerating the bad consequences of failures in examinations. Parents should
encourage children to learn from mistakes and be persistent in the face of challenging
situations. Children’s success or failures in English learning should be attributed to effort
or lack of effort rather than their innate ability. When children work hard but perform
poorly, parents are suggested to appreciate their children’s effort and be patient to work
together with them to figure out effective solutions and learning methods. It is essential to
have discussions with children on their ESL/EFL learning experiences and track their
achievement goal development. Once children show performance-avoidance goals, par­
ents should work together with teachers and reflect on their practices.
Another important implication is that teachers and parents should work together in
expressing clear goal messages. As our study shows the more important role of parents in
children’s various achievement goals, it is highly necessary to implement school and
parents’ collaborations, and provide more family education programmes to inform
parents what can be considered appropriate goals. Normally, parents convey their goals
and expectations which are derived from their backgrounds and/or previous learning
experiences. Not all parents’ goal emphases and expectations may serve their children’s
English learning purposes very well. Therefore, it is important for parents to understand
from English teachers what of their goals and expectations can be considered realistic and
appropriate for their own children.

Conclusions and Limitations

The present study complements the existing research, indicating the achievement
goals theory is applicable in ESL/EFL learning contexts and has important implica­
tions for language education. Specifically, mastery goals were positively related to
SRL strategy use, whereas performance-avoidance goals were negatively related to
SRL strategy use in English learning. The students’ SRL strategy use, in turn,
predicted the standardised English test scores. Moreover, we found evidence that
the students’ achievement goals were shaped by both teachers’ and parents’ prac­
tices. The study served as a bridge between prior studies on teachers’ goal emphases
538 J. WANG AND B. BAI

and other studies of motivational instructional strategies. The study also highlights
the unignorable role of parents in shaping students’ motivation, SRL strategy use,
and achievement in language learning.
The study has several limitations. First, the results were based on the students’
self-reports of teachers’ and parents’ goal emphases. Prior studies have also
adopted students’ self-reports to measure goal-related messages because it is
their subjective interpretations that affect academic motivation. It is worthwhile
for future research to employ multiple methods, such as self-reports, observations,
and teachers’ and parents’ interviews to examine whether children interpret goal-
related messages in a way that is congruent with teachers’ and parents’ intentions.
Second, our participants were nested in classrooms, but we did not conduct
multilevel analyses because the cluster size at the class level was considered too
small to yield accurate tests of inference (Hox 2010). A worthwhile direction for
future research will be to include a larger sample size and conduct multilevel
analyses.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributors
Dr. Jing Wang is an assistant professor at the College of Education, Zhejiang University, China.
Her research area is self-regulated learning, English as a Second Language learning and teaching,
and computer assisted language learning. Her work appears in Cambridge Journal of Education,
Language Teaching Research, Computer Assisted Language Learning, Psychology in the Schools,
and European Journal of Psychology of Education.
Dr. Barry Bai is an associate professor at the Faculty of Education, the Chinese University of Hong
Kong (CUHK), where he mainly teaches ELT-related courses. He has extensive teaching and
teacher training experience in Singapore, Hong Kong and the mainland China. His research
interests include teaching ESL/EFL, writing strategies, and teacher education. His work appears
in Cambridge Journal of Education, Computer Assisted Language Learning, Language Teaching
Research, Applied Linguistics Review, TESOL Quarterly, Reading and Writing Quarterly, ELT
Journal, System, The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, and Journal of Education for Teaching

ORCID
Jing Wang http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9262-5133
Barry Bai http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2124-5061

Funding
This work was supported by the Chinese National Social Sciences Fund (Education) for Young
Scholars: Students' Self-regulated Learning and Support from Teachers and Parents in the Digital
Era [Project number: CCA210257].
 RESEARCH PAPERS IN EDUCATION 539

References
Ames, C. 1992. “Classrooms: Goals, Structures, and Student Motivation.” Journal of Educational
Psychology 84 (3): 261–271. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261.
Bai, B. 2021. “School writing in Hong Kong: Current status and issues.” In J. V. Jeffery and J. Parr
(Eds.), International perspectives on writing curricula and development: A cross-case comparison
(pp. 58–77). Abingdon: Routledge.
Bai, B., and Wang, J. 2020. “The Role of Growth Mindset, Self-efficacy and Intrinsic Value in Self-
regulated Learning and English Language Learning Achievements.” Language Teaching
Research. doi:10.1177/1362168820933190
Bai, B., Wang, J., and Nie, Y. 2020. Self-efficacy, Task Values and Growth Mindset: What has the
most Predictive Power for Primary School Students’ Self-regulated Learning in English Writing
and Writing Competence in an Asian Confucian cultural context? Cambridge Journal of
Education, 1–20. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2020.1778639
Brophy, J. 2005. “Goal Theorists Should Move on from Performance Goals.” Educational
Psychologist 40 (3): 167–176. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4003_3.
Cheng, H.-F., and Z. Dörnyei. 2007. “The Use of Motivational Strategies in Language Instruction:
The Case of EFL Teaching in Taiwan.” Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 1 (1):
153–174. doi:10.2167/illt048.0.
Cheng, L., D. O. N. Klinger, J. Fox, C. Doe, Y. A. N. Jin, and J. Wu. 2014. “Motivation and Test
Anxiety in Test Performance across Three Testing Contexts: The CAEL, CET, and GEPT.”
TESOL Quarterly 48 (2): 300–330. doi:10.1002/tesq.105.
Cheung, C.-S.-S., and E. M. Pomerantz. 2012. “Why Does Parents’ Involvement Enhance
Children’s Achievement? the Role of Parent-oriented Motivation.” Journal of Educational
Psychology 104 (3): 820–832. doi:10.1037/a0027183.
Curriculum Development Council. 2017. English Language Education: Key Learning Area
Curriculum Guide (Primary 1 – Secondary 6). Hong Kong: Government Printer.
Dabarera, C., W. A. Renandya, and L. J. Zhang. 2014. “The Impact of Metacognitive Scaffolding
and Monitoring on Reading Comprehension.” System 42: 462–473. doi:10.1016/j.
system.2013.12.020.
Daniel, C. E., F. Halimi, and I. A. AlShammari. 2018. “The Impact of Motivation and Parental
Encouragement on English Language Learning: An Arab Students’ Perspective.” The Reading
Matrix: An International Online Journal 18: 176–194.
Dörnyei, Z. 2001. Motivational strategies in the language classroom Cambridge. U.K.: Cambridge
University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511667343.
Ebel, R. L., and D. A. Frisbie. 1986. Essentials of Education Measurement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Elliot, A. J. 1999. “Approach and Avoidance Motivation and Achievement Goals.” Educational
Psychologist 34 (3): 169–189. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3403_3.
Evans, S. 2017. “English in Hong Kong Higher Education.” World Englishes 36 (4): 591–610.
doi:10.1111/weng.12238.
Fredricks, J. A., P. C. Blumenfeld, and A. H. Paris. 2004. “School Engagement: Potential of the
Concept, State of the Evidence.” Review of Educational Research 74 (1): 59–109. doi:10.3102/
00346543074001059.
Friedel, J., K. Cortina, J. Turner, and C. Midgley. 2007. “Achievement Goals, Efficacy Beliefs and
Coping Strategies in Mathematics: The Roles of Perceived Parent and Teacher Goal Emphases.”
Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (3): 434–458. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.10.009.
Gonida, E. N., G. Kiosseoglou, and K. Voulala. 2007. “Perceptions of Parent Goals and Their
Contribution to Student Achievement Goal Orientation and Engagement in the Classroom:
Grade-level Differences across Adolescence.” European Journal of Psychology of Education
22 (1): 23–39. doi:10.1007/BF03173687.
Gonida, E. N., K. Voulala, and G. Kiosseoglou. 2009. “Students’ Achievement Goal Orientations
and Their Behavioral and Emotional Engagement: Co-examining the Role of Perceived School
Goal Structures and Parent Goals during Adolescence.” Learning and Individual Differences
19 (1): 53–60. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.04.002.
540 J. WANG AND B. BAI

Gonida, E. N., S. A. Karabenick, K. A. Makara, and G. A. Hatzikyriakou. 2014. “Perceived Parent

Goals and Student Goal Orientations as Predictors of Seeking or Not Seeking Help: Does Age
Matter?” Learning and Instruction 33: 120–130. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.04.007.
Greene, B. A., R. B. Miller, H. M. Crowson, B. L. Duke, and K. L. Akey. 2004. “Predicting High
School Students’ Cognitive Engagement and Achievement: Contributions of Classroom
Perceptions and Motivation.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 29 (4): 462–482.
doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.01.006.
Guilloteaux, M. J., and Z. Dörnyei. 2008. “Motivating Language Learners: A Classroom-oriented
Investigation of the Effects of Motivational Strategies on Student Motivation.” TESOL Quarterly
42 (1): 55–77. doi:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00207.x.
Guilloteaux, M.-J. 2013. “Motivational Strategies for the Language Classroom: Perceptions of
Korean Secondary School English Teachers.” System 41 (1): 3–14. doi:10.1016/j.
system.2012.12.002.
Hox, J. 2010. Multilevel Analysis: Techniques and Applications. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
Hulleman, C. S., S. M. Schrager, S. M. Bodmann, and J. M. Harackiewicz. 2010. “A Meta-analytic
Review of Achievement Goal Measures: Different Labels for the Same Constructs or Different
Constructs with Similar Labels?” Psychological Bulletin 136 (3): 422–449. doi:10.1037/
a0018947.
Iyengar, S. S., and M. R. Lepper. 1999. “Rethinking the Value of Choice: A Cultural Perspective on
Intrinsic Motivation.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76 (3): 349–366. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.76.3.349.
Kata, C., K. Judit, and S. Ágnes. 2010. “The Dynamics of Language Learning Attitudes and
Motivation: Lessons from an Interview Study of Dyslexic Language Learners.” The Modern
Language Lournal 94 (3): 470–487. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01054.x.
Kim, J. I., and H. Chung. 2012. “The Role of Family Orientation in Predicting Korean Boys’ and
Girls’ Achievement Motivation to Learn Mathematics.” Learning and Individual Differences
22 (1): 133–138. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.11.009.
Kim, J. I. 2015. “American High School Students from Different Ethnic Backgrounds: The Role of
Parents and the Classroom in Achievement Motivation.” Social Psychology of Education 18 (2):
411–430. doi:10.1007/s11218-014-9285-3.
King, R. B., D. M. McInerney, and D. A. Watkins. 2012. “Studying for the Sake of Others: The Role
of Social Goals on Academic Engagement.” Educational Psychology 32 (6): 749–776.
doi:10.1080/01443410.2012.730479.
Kormos, J., and K. Csizér. 2014. “The Interaction of Motivation, Self-regulatory Strategies, and
Autonomous Learning Behavior in Different Learner Groups.” TESOL Quarterly 48 (2):
275–299. doi:10.1002/tesq.129.
Kormos, J., T. Kiddle, and K. Csizér. 2011. “Systems of Goals, Attitudes, and Self-related Beliefs in
Second-language-learning Motivation.” Applied Linguistics 32 (5): 495–516. doi:10.1093/applin/
amr019.
Lai, C., W. Zhu, and G. Gong. 2015. “Understanding the Quality of Out-of-class English Learning.”
TESOL Quarterly 49 (2): 278–308. doi:10.1002/tesq.171.
Lamb, M. 2017. “The Motivational Dimension of Language Teaching.” Langauge Teaching 50 (3):
301–346. doi:10.1017/S0261444817000088.
Lee, I., and D. Coniam. 2013. “Introducing Assessment for Learning for EFL Writing in an
Assessment of Learning Examination-driven System in Hong Kong.” Journal of Second
Language Writing 22 (1): 34–50. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.11.003.
Licht, M. H. 1995. “Multiple regression and correlation”. In Reading and understanding multi­
variate statistics, edited by L. G. Grimm, and P. R. Yarnold, 19–64. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Liem, A. D., S. Lau, and Y. Nie. 2008. “The Role of Self-efficacy, Task Value, and Achievement
Goals in Predicting Learning Strategies, Task Disengagement, Peer Relationship, and
Achievement Outcome.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (4): 486–512. doi:10.1016/j.
cedpsych.2007.08.001.
 RESEARCH PAPERS IN EDUCATION 541

Lou, N. M., and K. A. Noels. 2017. “Measuring Language Mindsets and Modeling Their Relations
with Goal Orientations and Emotional and Behavioral Responses in Failure Situations.” The
Modern Language Journal 101 (1): 214–243. doi:10.1111/modl.12380.
Meece, J. L., E. M. Anderman, and L. H. Anderman. 2006. “Classroom Goal Structure, Student
Motivation, and Academic Achievement.” Annual Review of Psychology 57 (1): 487–503.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070258.
Midgley, C., A. Kaplan, and M. J. Middleton. 2001. “Performance-approach Goals: Good for What,
for Whom, under What Circumstances, and at What Cost?” Journal of Educational Psychology
93 (1): 77–86. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.77.
Midgley, C., M. L. Maehr, L. Z. Hruda, E. M. Anderman, L. Anderman, K. E. Freeman, and
T. Urdan. 2000. Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS). Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan.
Moeller, A. J., J. M. Theiler, and C. Wu. 2012. “Goal Setting and Student Achievement: A Longitudinal
Study.” The Modern Language Journal 96 (2): 153–169. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01231.x.
Nisbet, D. L., E. R. Tindall, and A. A. Arroyo. 2005. “Language Learning Strategies and English
Proficiency of Chinese University Students.” Foreign Language Annals 38 (1): 100–107.
doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2005.tb02457.x.
Oxford, R. L. 2011. Teaching and Researching Language Learning Strategies. Harlow, England and
N.Y.: Pearson/Longman.
Patrick, H., A. Kaplan, and A. M. Ryan. 2011. “Positive Classroom Motivational Environments:
Convergence between Mastery Goal Structure and Classroom Social Climate.” Journal of
Educational Psychology 103 (2): 367–382. doi:10.1037/a0023311.
Pintrich, P. R., A. M. Conley, and T. M. Kempler. 2003. “Current Issues in Achievement Goal
Theory and Research.” International Journal of Educational Research 39 (4–5): 319–337.
doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2004.06.002.
Pintrich, P. R. 2000. “The Role of Goal Orientation in Self-regulated Learning.” In Handbook of
Self-regulation, edited by M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner, 451–502. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Pintrich, P. R. 2003. “A Motivational Science Perspective on the Role of Student Motivation in
Learning and Teaching Contexts.” Journal of Educational Psychology 95 (4): 667–686.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667.
Qu, Y., E. M. Pomerantz, and C. Deng. 2016. “Mothers’ Goals for Adolescents in the United States
and China: Content and Transmission.” Journal of Research on Adolescence 26 (1): 126–141.
doi:10.1111/jora.12176.
Sato, M., and S. Loewen. 2018. “Metacognitive Instruction Enhances the Effectiveness of
Corrective Feedback: Variable Effects of Feedback Types and Linguistic Targets:
Metacognitive Instruction and Corrective Feedback.” Language Learning 68 (2): 507–545.
doi:10.1111/lang.12283.
Shyr, W.-J., H.-Y. Feng, L.-W. Zeng, Y.-M. Hsieh, and C.-Y. Shih. 2017. “The Relationship
between Language Learning Strategies and Achievement Goal Orientations from Taiwanese
Engineering Students in EFL Learning.” Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and
Technology Education 13 (10). doi:10.12973/ejmste/76660.
Teng, L. S., and L. J. Zhang. 2020. “Empowering Learners in the Second/foreign Language
Classroom: Can Self-regulated Learning Strategies-based Writing Instruction Make a
Difference?” Journal of Second Language Writing, 48: 100701. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100701.
Trilling, B. 2009. 21st Century Skills: Learning for Life in Our Times. 1st ed. San Francisco: San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Troia, G., A. Harbaugh, R. Shankland, K. Wolbers, and A. Lawrence. 2013. “Relationships between
Writing Motivation, Writing Activity, and Writing Performance: Effects of Grade, Sex, and
Ability.” Reading and Writing 26 (1): 17–44. doi:10.1007/s11145-012-9379-2.
Urdan, T., and E. Schoenfelder. 2006. “Classroom Effects on Student Motivation: Goal Structures,
Social Relationships, and Competence Beliefs.” Journal of School Psychology 44 (5): 331–349.
doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.003.
542 J. WANG AND B. BAI

Urdan, T. 2004. “Predictors of Academic Self-handicapping and Achievement: Examining

Achievement Goals, Classroom Goal Structures, and Culture.” Journal of Educational
Psychology 96 (2): 251–264. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.251.
Wang, J., R. B. King, and N. Rao. 2019a. “The Role of Social-academic Goals in Chinese Students’
Self-regulated Learning.” European Journal of Psychology of Education 34 (3): 579–600.
doi:10.1007/s10212-018-0404-y
Wang, J., and N. Rao. 2019b. “Classroom Goal Structures: Observations from Urban and Rural
High School Classes in China.” Psychology in the Schools 56 (8): 1211–1229. doi:10.1002/
pits.22271
Woodrow, L. 2006. “Anxiety and Speaking English as a Second Language.” RELC Journal 37 (3):
308–328. doi:10.1177/0033688206071315.
Xiao, Y., and M. Yang. 2019. “Formative Assessment and Self-regulated Learning: How Formative
Assessment Supports Students’ Self-regulation in English Language Learning.” System 81:
39–49. doi:10.1016/j.system.2019.01.004.
Zhang, L. J., N. Thomas, and T. L. Qin. 2019. “Language Learning Strategy Research in System:
Looking Back and Looking Forward.” System 84: 87–92. doi:10.1016/j.system.2019.06.002.
Zimmerman, B. J. 1990. “Self-regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: An Overview.”
Educational Psychologist 25 (1): 3–17. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2501_2.