Open Journal of Modern Linguistics
2011. Vol.1, No.2, 39-44
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. DOI:10.4236/ojml.2011.12006
Iranian EFL Learners’ Achievement Goals in Relation with Their
Metacognitive Reading Strategy Use
Mahtab Mohammadi Ghavam, Mina Rastegar, Mohammad Hasan Razmi
Foreign Languages Department, Shahid Bahonar University, Kerman, Iran.
Email: {Nicemoon662011, Hasanrazmi2000}@gmail.com, Rastegar@mail.uk.ac.ir
Received October 22nd, 2011; revised November 22nd, 2011; accepted December 10th, 2011.
The present study aimed at finding the relationship between the subscales of achievement goals and the fre-
quency of metacognitive reading strategies (MRS) Iranian EFL learners use, and tried to explore any significant
differences between males and females regarding achievement goals and metacognitive reading strategy use.
103 freshman and sophomore students majoring in English Literature and English Translation in Shahid Baho-
nar and Azad universities of Kerman took part in this study. In order to obtain the required data, two question-
naires were utilized: Achievement Goal Questionnaire (AGQ) developed by Elliot and McGregor (2001) to
measure the participants’ achievement goal orientations, and Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies
Inventory (MARSI) developed by Mokhtari and Reichard (2002) to measure the participants’ frequency of
metacognitive reading strategy use. The findings of this study revealed that there was a significant positive rela-
tionship between mastery-approach goal orientation and MRS use. Regarding the other three subscales of
achievement goals (performance-approach, performance-avoidance, and mastery-avoidance) in relation with
MRS use, all the correlations were significantly negative. Moreover, a significant difference was found between
males and females regarding their achievement goals. Females were found to have higher scores of achievement
goals. Regarding MRS use and gender, no significant difference was found between males and females.
Keywords: Metacognitive Reading Strategies (MRS), Achievement Goals, English as a Foreign Language (EFL)
Introduction
Reading is an essential skill and perhaps the most vital skill
for second language learners to master in academic settings
(Grabe, 1991). It can be considered as a gateway for getting and
learning new knowledge. According to Shuyun Li and Mumby
(1996), reading can be considered as a complex and demanding
process in which students actively use metacognitive strategies
which were defined by Oxford (1990) as the learners’ behaviors
for planning, arrangement, and self-assessment. Regarding the
importance of reading comprehension, it can be mentioned that
it is the basic goal for EFL/ESL students to gain knowledge
about the world, enabling them to think about and react to what
they read (Tierney, 2005). Strategic awareness and monitoring
of the comprehension process are important aspects of skilled
reading (Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995; Sheorey & Mokhtari,
2001). Although considerable research has been done on stu-
dents’ awareness of the metacognitive reading strategies, there
has been little attention as to how the context of learning and
students’ motivation affects the actual use of these strategies.
One important aspect of motivation is the achievement goal
orientation which can be described as the integrated patterns of
beliefs helping the learners approach, engage in and respond to
achievement related situations (Ames, 1992; Elliot & Mc-
Gregor, 2001; Meece, Blumenfeld, & Hoyle, 1998). The rela-
tionship among achievement goals, learning strategies and aca-
demic achievement has been widely investigated (e.g. Chan,
Lau, Leung, & Moore, 2005; Elliot, McGregor & Gable, 1999;
Pintrich & Schunk, 2000), but the study examining the rela-
tionship between learners’ achievement goals and metacogni-
tive reading strategy use has been lacking. This study, therefore,
aimed at investigating Iranian EFL learners’ achievement goals
in relation with their use of metacognitive reading strategies.
Furthermore, the differences between males and females re-
garding their achievement goals and metacognitive reading
strategy use, was another issue to be explored in this study.
Metacognitive Reading Strategies
Metacognition was first introduced in the 1970s by Flavell,
and has widely attracted attention in the educational domain
(Baker, 2005; Samuels, Ediger, Willcut, & Palumbo, 2005).
Flavell (1979) defined metacognition as the “knowledge and
cognition about cognitive phenomena” (p. 906). Baker and
Brown (1984) divide metacognition into two categories: know-
ledge about cognition which is one’s awareness and appraisal
of one’s own cognitive process, and regulation of cognitive
knowledge which can be defined as strategies leading to the
achievement of self-regulation. After this study, Flavell (1987)
divided metacognition into three categories: including knowl-
edge of person variables, task variables, and strategy variables.
Strategy is conceived as a deliberate goal-directed action (Pe-
reira-Laird & Deane, 1997), which can be either conscious or
unconscious or automatic. Therefore, there was a move from
metacognitive knowledge to metacognitive strategies. Oxford
(1990) defined metacognitive strategies as learners’ behaviors
for planning, arrangement, and self-assessment including di-
rected practice, opportunities, and so forth.
Reading strategies have been conceptualized as specific, de-
liberate, goal-oriented mental processes or behaviors control-
ling and modifying the reader’s efforts to decode, understand
the words, and construct the text’s meaning (Garner, 1987;
Afflerbach, Pearson, & Paris, 2008). Reading strategies have
been categorized as cognitive, metacognitive and social affec-
tive strategies (Chamot, 1987; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990).
Learners’ metacognitive strategic knowledge in reading is
composed of thinking about the reading process, planning for
reading, monitoring comprehension during the reading process,
evaluating the effectiveness of strategies used in reading, and
M. MOHAMMADI GHAVAM ET AL.
40
verifying what is read as well as specific steps in problem solv-
ing during comprehension (Flavell, 1987; O’Malley & Chamot,
1990; Wenden, 1991).
Achievement Goal Orientations
Although academic discussions of human motivation devel-
oped in the last century, research in this area has grown in the
last two decades with the study of achievement goal orientation
(Dweck, 1986; Nicholls, 1984). Achievement goals are rela-
tively stable orientations that the learners bring to the learning
situations (Lehmann, 2002). They are composed of reasons and
purposes that students consider for achievement tasks (Gutman,
2006; Sins, Vanjoohngen, Saveisbergn, & Hout-Wolters, 2008;
Bipp, Steinmayr, & Spinath, 2008).
Initial theoretical and empirical research on achievement
goals followed a dichotomous framework grounded in the dis-
tinction between mastery and performance (Dweck, 1986;
Nicholls, 1984). Mastery goals focus on the development of
competence, and performance goals focus on the demonstration
of competence. This initial distinction of mastery versus per-
formance developed from studies demonstrating that more
adaptive results are associated with mastery goals while less
adaptive results are related to performance goals (Ames, 1992;
Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). According to Ames (1992), while
mastery goal oriented learners tend to improve their ability,
understanding, and level of competence or to gain a sense of
mastery based on self- referenced criteria, performance goal
oriented learners tend to focus on and determine their ability by
outperforming others in competitions, achievements or grades,
and receive public recognition for their superior performance.
More recent theoretical and empirical research has followed
a trichotomous model grounded in the mastery-performance
distinction and the difference between approach and avoidance
motivation (Elliot & Church, 1997). In performance approach
orientation, the learner strives to demonstrate high ability, but
in performance avoidance orientation, the learner intends to
avoid demonstrating low ability (Elliot, 1999) Therefore, the
trichotomous model includes mastery goal, performance ap-
proach, and performance avoidance orientations.
Elliot and McGregor (2001) further developed the trichoto-
mous model into a four factor framework by applying the ap-
proach-avoidance distinction to the mastery goal orientation.
Therefore, the four factor framework consists of mastery ap-
proach, mastery avoidance, performance approach, and per-
formance avoidance goals. Recently, a fifth type of motivation,
named work avoidance, has been added to the four factor
framework which seems to be of interest in the educational
setting (Harackiewicz, Barron, Carter, Lehto, & Elliot, 1997;
Pieper, 2003).
Literature Review
Deyreh and Banijamali (2009) carried out a research to study
the effect and contribution of motivational factors (self-efficacy,
mastery goals, and instrumentality) on cognitive and metacog-
nitive strategies used in learning processes. They found that
cognitive and metacognitive strategies were influenced by per-
ceived instrumentality, mastery goals, and self-efficacy.
Kharazi, Ezhehei, Ghazi Tabatabaei, and Kareshki (2008)
carried out a research to study the relationships between
achievement goals, self-efficacy and metacognitive strategies in
Tehran high schools, based on a causal model. They selected a
sample of 685 third grade high school students. They found
mutual significant correlations between achievement goals,
self-efficacy and metacognitive strategies components.
Mohsenpour, Hejazi, and Kiamanesh (2008) carried out a
study to investigate the effect of self-efficacy and achievement
goals as motivational variables and learning strategies and per-
sistence as cognitive variables on students’ mathematics achie-
vement. The results revealed that there were direct effects of
performance-approach goals, avoidance-approach goals, self-
efficacy, learning strategies and persistence on mathematics
achievement.
Pintrich and DeGroot (1990), and Pintrich and Garcia (1991)
found that the learners who select mastery goal orientations
show higher levels of cognitive and metacognitive strategies
than those who focus on proving their abilities to others or
avoiding the perception of incompetence. Moreover, a moder-
ate to strong positive relationship was found between learners’
use of metacognitive strategies and their academic achieve-
ment.
Research Questions
This study aimed at finding the answers to the following re-
search questions:
1) Are there any significant relationships between achieve-
ment goals and the frequency of metacognitive reading strate-
gies Iranian EFL learners use?
2) Are there any significant differences between males and
females regarding their achievement goals, and metacognitive
reading strategy use?
Methodology
Participants
The participants of this study were 103 male and female
freshman and sophomore EFL students majoring in English
Literature or English Translation at Shahid Bahonar and Azad
Universities of Kerman. These participants were randomly
chosen.
The rationale behind selecting freshman and sophomore stu-
dents was due to this study’s aim at identifying the EFL learn-
ers’ metacognitive strategies in reading and finding the rela-
tionship between students’ achievement goal orientations and
their metacognitive reading strategy use.
Instruments
In this study, the following instruments were used to collect
the required data:
1) Achievement Goal Questionnaire (AGQ) developed by
Elliot and McGregor (2001).
2) Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory
(MARSI) developed by Mokhtari and Reichard (2002).
In order to measure the students’ achievement goals in the
classroom context, Elliot and McGregor’s (2001) 12-item AGQ
was used. This questionnaire allows responses ranging from 1
(not at all true of me) to 7 (very true of me) and represent four
possible goal orientations: namely, mastery-approach, mastery-
avoidance, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance.
According to Wang, Liu, and Chye (2010), the internal consis-
tency coefficients of the mastery-approach (α = .79), perform-
ance-approach (α = .88), mastery-avoidance (α = .79), and per-
formance-avoidance goal orientation (α = .73) were satisfac-
tory.
M. MOHAMMADI GHAVAM ET AL. 41
Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory
(MARSI), designed by Mokhtari and Reichard (2002), was
designed to measure adolescent and adult students’ awareness
and use of reading strategies while reading academic or school-
related materials. The MARSI Questionnaire, which allows
responses from 1 (I never or almost never do this) to 5 (I al-
ways or almost always do this), measures three broad categories
of reading strategies including: Global reading strategies (GLOB),
Problem-solving strategies (PROB), and Support reading strate-
gies (SUP). The 30-item questionnaire was validated by Mok-
htari and Reichard (2002) and the internal consistency reliabil-
ity coefficient for its three above subscales ranged from .89
to .93 and reliability for the total sample was .93, showing a
reasonably dependable measure of metacognitive awareness of
reading strategies.
The Pilot Study of the Instruments
Before launching the main study, AGQ and MARSI were
piloted with 30 freshman and sophomore EFL students who
were randomly selected at Shahid Bahonar and Azad universi-
ties of Kerman. Cronbach alpha showed that the reliability of
AGQ of the pilot study was .80. The reliability of the AGQ in
the main study among 103 participants came out to be .82.
Moreover, the reliability of MARSI of the pilot study was .79.
The reliability of the MARSI in the main study came out to
be .84.
Data Collection Procedures
AGQ and MARSI scales were distributed among the partici-
pants simultaneously. Participants were given time (15 - 20
mins) to answer these questionnaires and there were accompa-
nying instructions. They were assured that the information
would be kept completely confidential. They were also told that
the gathered information would be used only for research pur-
poses.
Results
The descriptive statistics of the variables of the study, name-
ly achievement goals and metacognitive reading strategy use as
well as the achievement goal subscales have been presented in
Tables 1 and 2.
Achievement Goals Subscales in Relation with MRS
Use
In order to answer the first research question regarding the
relationship between the subscales of achievement goals and
MRS use, four Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coeffi-
cients were conducted (Table 3).
Regarding the first subscale of achievement goals, that is
mastery-approach, and MRS use, a significant positive rela-
tionship was found (r = .85). Concerning the second subscale,
that is mastery-avoidance, and MRS use, a significant negative
relationship was found (r = .78). According to Table 3, re-
garding the third subscale of achievement goals, namely, per-
formance-approach and MRS use, a significant negative rela-
tionship was found (r = .81). Finally, concerning the last sub-
scale, performance-avoidance and MRS use, a significant rela-
tionship was found (r = .83).
Gender Differences and Achievement Goals
In order to investigate the second question regarding the gen-
der differences and Learners’ achievement goals, an Independ-
Table 1.
The descriptive statistics of the variables.
N Range Min Max Mean SD Variance
MRS 103 78 45 123 91.46 24.55 602.93
Achievement Goals 103 66 16 82 53.60 22.89 523.98
Table 2.
The descriptive statistics of the s u bs c a l e s o f a c h i e v e m e nt g o a l s .
Range Min Max Mean SD Variance
Mastery-approach 18 3 21 13.65 5.81 33.83
Mastery-avoidance 18 3 21 10.66 5.99 35.97
Performance-approach 18 3 21 10.63 6.00 36.03
Performance-avoidance 18 3 21 10.75 6.05 36.61
Table 3.
Correlations of the subscales of achievement goals and MRS use.
Mastery-approach Mastery-avoidance performance-approach Performance-avoidance
MRS Use
Pearson Correlation .85** .78** .81** .83**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
N 103 103 103 103
*
*Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).
M. MOHAMMADI GHAVAM ET AL.
42
ent T-test was run. According to the results, since P = .000 is
less than α = .05, there is a significant difference among males
and females regarding their achievement goals (Table 4).
Comparing the means obtained from male and female partici-
pants, it can be concluded that females’ total achievement goal
is more than those of males.
Gender Differences and MRS Use
In order to investigate the gender differences and MRS use,
an Independent T-test was run. According to the results, since P
= .231 is more than α = .05, there is not any significant differ-
ence among males and females regarding their MRS use (Table
5).
Discussion
Concerning the first research question of this study, that is
the relationship between the subscales of achievement goals
and the learners’ metacognitive reading strategy use, some
significant relationships were found that are discussed one by
one.
According to the results of this study, there is a significant
positive relationship between mastery-approach goals and me-
tacognitive reading strategy use. This finding is in line with that
of Ames and Archer (1988), Nolen and Haladyna (1990),
Schmidt and Ford (2003). Other researchers have found that
students with mastery goals devote more effort to monitoring
their learning; seek evaluative feedback (Butler, 1993; Vande-
Walle Brown, Cron, & Slocum, 1999) and persist longer when
faced with negative feedback (VandeWalle et al., 1999).
Regarding the relationship between performance-approach
goals and metacognitive reading strategy use, a significant
negative relationship was found in this study. According to
Schmidt and Ford (2003), while research shows that perform-
ance-avoidance goals are negatively related to metacognition,
the relationship between performance-approach goals and me-
tacognition is vague. Some studies have found a weak positive
relationship between metacognition and performance-approach
goals (Ames & Archer, 1988; Archer, 1994; Meece et al., 1988;
Nolen & Haladyna, 1990), whereas other studies cite a negative
relationship (Wolters, 1998) or no relationship (Ford, Smith,
Weissbein, Gully, & Salas, 1998).
According to this study’s results, mastery-avoidance and
performance-avoidance goals are negatively related to learners’
frequency of metacognitive reading strategy use. It can be in-
ferred that students who avoid demonstrations of incompetence
are less likely to use metacognitive strategies that foster a deep
understanding of material. In addition, avoidance goals are
found to be related to negative results including test anxiety,
poor academic performance, and fear of failure (Elliot, 1999;
Elliot & Church, 1997).
Regarding the second question of this study, that is the anal-
ysis of gender differences in learners’ achievement goals and
metacognitive reading strategy use, it was found that there is a
significant difference between males and females regarding
their achievement goals. Comparing the obtained means from
male and female participants, it was concluded that females’
total achievement goal is more than males’. This finding is in
line with Kenny-Benson et al. (2006), Eccles, Wigfield, Harold,
and Blumenfeld (1993), who found that boys and girls take
different approaches to how they handle and view their aca-
demic tasks, which may relate to the type of goal orientations
that they also employ. Concerning the analysis of gender dif-
ferences in learners’ metacognitive reading strategy use, no
significant difference was found among males and females.
This finding is in line with that of Zare-ee (2007), Cooper
(2004), but is in contrast with that of Sy (1994), Bacon (1992),
Oxford (1989), Ehrman and Oxford (1989).
Due to limitations of research, this study was carried out in
two educational contexts, with a limited number of freshman
and sophomore EFL students. It would be useful to replicate
and extend the recent research to larger samples with different
proficiency levels in other educational contexts such as ESL
settings. Furthermore, this study relies on gathering data by
means of two self-report questionnaires. It is possible for future
researchers to utilize other means of data collection such as
interviews and observations along with using self-report ques-
tionnaires. As mentioned before, metacognitive reading strate-
gies can be in relation with a number of factors dealing with
motivation and context of learning. This study, due to time and
space limitations, only explored one aspect of motivation,
namely achievement goal orientations in relation with the
learners’ choices of metacognitive reading strategies. Investi-
gating other factors in learning context can be the focus of fu-
ture studies.
Conclusion
Strategic awareness and monitoring of the comprehension
process are important aspects of skilled reading (Pressley &
Afflerbach, 1995; Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001). This study,
therefore, tried to find the ways in which factors like motivation
Table 4.
Independent T-test for achievement goals and gender.
Groups N Mean SD t df P
Male 38 37.23 20.65 6.6 101 .000
Female 65 63.16 18.34
Table 5.
Independent T-test for MRS use and gender.
Groups N Mean SD t df P
Male 38 87.65 25.09 -1.2 101 .231
Female 65 93.69 24.14
M. MOHAMMADI GHAVAM ET AL. 43
and specifically achievement goals affect the metacognitive
strategy use in a reading comprehension class. Achievement
goal was regarded as a four-factor construct including mastery-
approach, mastery-avoidance, performance-approach, and per-
formance-avoidance goals. Therefore, this study, found a sig-
nificant positive relationship between mastery-approach goal
and metacognitive reading strategy use. With regard to per-
formance-approach, performance-avoidance, and mastery-avoi-
dance goals, a significant negative relationship was found.
The implications of these findings are that in educational
contexts a great deal of attention should be paid to constructs
such as motivation, achievement goals, and metacognition. By
the same token, in language learning classes, attention to the
aforementioned constructs can help the learners boost their
learning abilities in different language skills. To achieve such a
goal, English teachers should be trained to get familiar with
these constructs; moreover, they should try to raise the stu-
dents’ awareness about the constructs. In this way, the students
can improve their reading comprehension. Therefore, it can be
concluded that to enhance the language learners’ metacognitive
strategy use in reading, teachers should firstly try to investigate
the dominant achievement goals in their students, and secondly
try to encourage mastery-approach goals in their students which
leads to improving their ability and understanding, their level of
competence or gaining a sense of mastery based on self-refer-
enced criteria (Ames, 1992). Students that do not use strategies
should not be left alone. They might have learnt the strategies
but they are not able to use them practically. They may not lag
behind in strategy learning but in other factors related to the
strategy use, such as achievement goals. In a broader scope and
in light of the findings of the present study, material designers,
curriculum developers, and syllabus designers in the area of
applied linguistics can take such implications into consideration.
The findings of this study might also encourage the other re-
searchers to investigate the influence of other factors in learn-
ing context on learners’ metacognitive reading strategy use, or
find the relationship between achievement goals and metacog-
nitive strategies in areas of listening or writing in other aca-
demic contexts.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge Mr. Mehrdad Nazarieh’s co-
operative effort. He steered us through troubled waters when
we were incapable of paying the application fee.
References
Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differ-
ences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading
Teacher, 61, 364-373. doi:10.1598/RT.61.5.1
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom:
Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 80, 260-267. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.80.3.260
Archer, S. L. (1994). Interventions for adolescent identity development.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Bacon, S. M. (1992). Phases of listening to authentic input in Spanish:
A descriptive study. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 317-333.
doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.1992.tb00552.x
Baker, L. (2005). Developmental differences in Metacognition: Impli-
cations for metacognitively oriented reading instruction. In S. E. Is-
rael, K. L. Bauserman, C. C. Block and K. Kinnucan-Welsch (Eds.),
Metacognition in Literacy Learning: Theory, Assessment, Instruction
and Professional Development (pp. 61-79). Abingdon: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In
P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil and P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Hand-
book of Reading Research (pp. 353-394). New York: Longman.
Bipp, T., Steinmayr, R., & Spinath, B. (2008). Personality and achie-
vement motivation: Relationship among big five domain and facet
scales, achievement goals and intelligence. Personality and Individ-
ual Differences, 44, 1454-1464. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.001
Butler, R. (1993). Effects of task-and ego-achievement goals on infor-
mation seeking during task engagement. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 65, 18-31. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.1.18
Chamot, A., & O’Malley, M. (1987). The cognitive academic language
learning approach: A bridge to the mainstream. TESOL Quarterly, 21,
227-249. doi:10.2307/3586733
Chan, K. W., Lau, P. Y., Leung, M. T., & Moore, P. J. (2005). Stu-
dents’ goal orientations, study strategies and achievement: A closer
look in Hong Kong Chinese cultural context. The Asia-Pacific Edu-
cation Researcher, 14, 1-26.
Cooper, S. S. (2004). Metacognition in the adult learner. URL (last
checked 23 March 2010)
http://www.lifecircles-inc.com/metacognition.htm
Deyreh, E., & Banijamali, S. H. (2009). The study of contribution of
motivational factors on cognitive and metacognitive strategies used
in learning process. Psychological Studies, 5, 47-62.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. Am-
erican Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Harold, R. D., & Blumenfeld, P. (1993).
Age and gender differences in children’s self- and task perceptions
during elementary school. Child Development, 64, 830-847.
doi:10.2307/1131221
Ehrman, M. E., & Oxford, R. L. (1989). Effects of sex differences,
career choice, and psychological type on adult language learning
strategies. Modern Langua ge Journal, 73, 1-13.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb05302.x
Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achieve-
ment goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 169-189.
doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3403_3
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach
and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 72, 218-232. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.218
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal
framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501-
519. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.501
Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A., & Gable, S. L. (1999). Achievement
goals, study strategies, and exam performance: A mediational analy-
sis. Journal of Educationa l Psychology, 91, 549-563.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.3.549
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new
area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34,
906-911. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculation about the nature and development of
metacognition. In: F. E. Wernert and R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacog-
nition, Motivation and Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erl-
baum Associates.
Ford, J. K., Smith, E. M., Weissbein, D. A., Gully, S. M., & Salas, E.
(1998). Relationships of goal orientation, meta-cognitive activity,
and practice strategies with learning outcomes and transfer. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 83, 218-233.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.218
Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Nor-
wood, NJ: Ablex.
Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in second language reading
research. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 375-406. doi:10.2307/3586977
Gutman, L. M. (2006). How student and parent goal orientation and
classroom goal structures influence the math achievement of African
Americans during high school transition? Contemporary Educational
M. MOHAMMADI GHAVAM ET AL.
44
Psychology, 31, 44-63. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.01.004
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Carter, S. M., Lehto, A. T., & Elliot,
A. J. (1997). Predictors and consequences of achievement goals in
the college classroom: Maintaining interest and making the grade.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1284-1295.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1284
Kenny-Benson, G. A., Pomerantz, E. M., Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, I-I.
(2006). Sex differences in math performance: The role of children's
approach to schoolwork. Developmental Psychology, 42, 1 1-26.
Kharazi, S. A. N., Ezhehei, J., Ghazi Tabatabaei, M., & Kareshki, H.
(2008). An investigation of the relationships between achievement
goals, self-efficacy and metacognitive strategies: Testing a causal
model. Journal of Psychology an d Education, 38, 69-87.
Lenmann, R. L. (2002). Enhancing the valuing of commitment to ef-
fortful achievement: An achievement goal approach. Proceeding of
the AERA Annual Meeting, University of Minnesota, 1-19.
Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students’ goal
orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Jour-
nal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514-523.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.514
Mohsenpour, M., Hejazi, E., & Kiamanesh, A. R. (2008). The roal of
self-efficacy, achievement goals, learning strategies and persistence
in math achievement of 11th grade high school students in Tehran.
Journal of Educational I nnovations, 24, 153-172.
Mokhtari, K., Reichard, C. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive
awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology,
94, 249-259. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.249
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability,
subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological
Review, 91, 328-346. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.91.3.328
Nolen, S. B., & Haladyna, T. M. (1990). Motivation and studying in
high school science. Journal of Research in Science and Teaching,
27, 115-126. doi:10.1002/tea.3660270204
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in sec-
ond language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every tea-
cher should know. New York: Newbury House.
Oxford, R. L. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: A synthesis
of studies with implications for strategy training. System, 17, 235-
247. doi:10.1016/0346-251X(89)90036-5
Pereira-Laird, J. A., & Deane, F. P. (1997). Development and valida-
tion of a self-report measure of reading strategy use. Reading Psy-
chology: An International Jo urnal, 18, 185-235.
Pieper, S. (2003). Refining and extending the 2 × 2 achievement goal
framework: Another look at work-avoidance. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 64, 4436.
Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regu-
lated learning components of classroom academic performance.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33
Pintrich, P. R., & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and
self-regulation in the college classroom. In M. L. Maehr and P. R.
Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement (pp. 371-
402). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2000). Motivation in education. The-
ory, research, and applications (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: The-
ory, research, and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The
nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Samuels, S. J., Ediger, K.-A. M., Willcutt, J. R., & Palumbo, T. (2005).
Role of automaticity in metacognition and literacy instruction. In S.
E. Israel, K. L. Bauserman, C. C. Block and K. Kinnucan-Welsch
(Eds.), Metacognition in Literacy Learning: Theory, Assessment, In-
str uctio n and Professional Development (pp. 42-59). Abingdon: Law-
rence Erlbaum Associates.
Schmidt, A. M., & Ford, K. J. (2003). Learning with a learner con-
trol-training environment: The interactive effects of goals orientation
and metacognitive instruction on learning outcomes. Personnel Psy-
chology, 56, 380-405. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00156.x
Sheorey, R., Mokhtari, K. (2001). Coping with academic materials:
Differences in the reading strategies of native and non-native readers.
System, 29, 431-449. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00039-2
Shuyun, L., & Munby, H. (1996). Metacognitive strategies in second
language academic reading: A qualitative Investigation, English for
specific purposes, The American University Great Britain, 15, 199-
216.
Sins, P. H. M., Vanjoohngen, W. R., Saveisbergn, E. R., & Hout-
Wolters, B. V. (2008). Motivation and performance within a col-
laborative computer-based modeling task: Relations between stu-
dents’ achievement goal orientations, self-efficacy, cognitive proc-
essing and achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33,
58-77. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.12.004
Sy, B. M. (1994). Sex differences and language learning strategies.
Paper presented at the 11th Conference of Teachers of English to
Speakers of Other Languages of the Republic of China, Taiwan.
Tierney, J. E. (2005). Reading strategies and practices (6th ed.). Bos-
ton, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
VandeWalle D., Brown, S. P., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W. (1999).
The influence of goal orientation and self-regulation tactics on sales
performance: A longitudinal field test. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 84, 249-259. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.2.249
Wang, C. K., Liu, W. S., & Chye, S. (2010). Achievement goals, im-
plicit theories and behavioral regulation among polytechnic engi-
neering students. The International Journal of Research and Review,
5, 1-17.
Wenden, A. L., (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy: Plan-
ning and implementing learner training for language learners. Hert-
fordshire, UK: Prentice-Hall International.
Wolters, C. A. (1998). Self-regulated learning and collage students’
regulation of motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90,
224-235. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.90.2.224
Zare-ee, A. (2007). The relationship between cognitive and meta-cog-
nitive strategy use and EFL reading achievement. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 2, 105-119.