1Running Head: Locus of Hope, Goal Setting, and Self-Regulation

27Locus of Hope, Goal Setting, and Self-Regulation

Locus Focus: The Moderating Effect of Goal Setting on Locus of Hope and Self-RegulationComment by Melle: Improve title, correcting grammatical errors

Celine Dionne M. Carlos, Lanz Aidan L. Olives and Stephanie Clare T. RojasDe La Salle University

Comment by Melle: Delete all and rewriteAbstractThere are a number of factors that will attribute to ones good academic performance. However, the following three (3) variables that will be focused on in this research - Locus of Hope, Goal Setting or Goal Orientation and Self-Regulation. The study will highlight the moderating effect of Goal Setting on Locus of Hope and Self-Regulation. With the used of mixed methods - Sequential Explanatory design, this study will focus on the effects of both the internal and external locus of hope to mastery, performance approach and performance avoidance of goal setting and its effect on self-regulated learning specifically to its cognitive/metacognitive and resource management aspects. Furthermore, the present study aims to explore the applicability of the research to students who are currently taking up law here in the Philippines.Comment by Melle: Grammatical errorComment by Melle: Wrong position of info.

Table of ContentsPage

Chapter I IntroductionBackground.Review of Related LiteratureSynthesis Conceptual Framework Statement of the Problem Hypothesis Definition of TermsSignificance of the StudyScope and Delimitation4-55-2222-2627-303030-3232-343434

Chapter II MethodologyResearch Design (Quantitative Phase)Sample and Sampling Design Instruments Procedures Data Analysis (Qualitative Phase)Sample and Sampling DesignInstrumentsProceduresData AnalysisMethodological Limitations 35-38

3838-3939-4040

40 41414141-42

References 43-53

Appendix54-59

Chapter I

INTRODUCTIONBackgroundMost people attribute academic achievement, excellence, and good and good performance to ones intelligence. Students who are intellectually competent usually get the best appraisals and prestigious awards. This is the typical scenario in competitive academic settings. However, different studies say that academic achievements are not only attributed to intelligence and abilities. It is also important to know that there are other factors that keep the students on the right track towards their academic goals.There are a number of factors that will contribute to good academic performance. In this proposed study, the following variables will be the focus: Locus of Hope, Goal Setting/ Orientation, and Self-Regulation.Hope is said to be a positive motivational state and it helps the person going. It also serves as a way to control negative emotions (Bruininks & Malle, 2005), which are usually caused by unfortunate events or unfavorable outcomes. Hope can be attained from oneself or from other external components such as family, peers and super beings or deities. Aside from being hopeful, the type of goal orientation that one has is also important. One may choose to focus on developing new skills as a goal orientation (Ames, 1992b; Brophy, 1983b; Meece, Blumenfeld & Hoyle, 1988; Nicholls, 1989 as cited in Ames, 1992) or one may opt to focus on showing their competencies and be recognized publicly (Darnon, Butera & Harackiewicz, 2007). Lastly, being self- regulated means that one can do tasks by not thinking too much and be able to focus more on their performance. Different self-regulated learning strategies can enhance ones self-regulation (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1997).Comment by Melle: Give equal treatment to all your variales. Mention how you predict they are related to each otherThe researchers intend to explore the moderating effect of goal setting on an individuals locus of hope and self-regulation through using self-regulated learning strategies. Furthermore, the present study would gather data from law students in Metro Manila.Comment by Melle: Expand. Expand.

Review of Related LiteratureHope Theory Hope theory refers to hope as peoples mental processes regarding their expectations to reach their goals (Snyder, 1994). Snyder (1995 as cited in Snyder et al, 2002) further expounds hope as the process of thinking about ones goals, along with the motivation to move toward those goals and the ways to achieve those goals. Moreover, there are 2 components of goal-directed thinking the agency or agentic thinking and pathways or pathways thinking (Curry et al, 1997).Agentic thinking pertains to the capability to execute means to attain personal goals (Tong et al, 2010). It depicts the cognitive impetus that turns ones can do attitude into being confident that they will attain their goals (Snyder et al, 2002; Hagen, Myers & Mackintosh 2005). Agency involves providing a mental plan of action, which revolves around upon the exclusion of forces that would come as possible hindrances. (Curry et al, 1997). It focuses more about the intention rather than perceived ability (Snyder, Rand & Sigmon, 2002 as cited in Juntunen & Wettersten, 2006). Agentic thinking is comprised of self-recognition, perceiving the self as the creator of actions and formation of goals (Snyder, Cheavens & Sympson, 1997) Pathways thinking which refers to the capacity of an individual to come up with one or more means to arrive at the targeted goal (Hagen, Myers & Mackintosh, 2005). It is a persons perception that he can come up with various ways to attain his goal regardless of any obstacles that may hinder him from doing so (Snyder, Cheavens & Sympson, 1997). Pathways thinking are associated with the sensation and perception of external stimuli, understanding the connection of events and goal formation.Some researchers have varied stands on the importance of agency thinking and pathways thinking. Cramer & Dyrkacz (1998 as cited in Snyder et al, 2002) found that agentic thinking is more important than identifying specific means to achieve goals. Whereas Irving, Snyder & Crowson (1998 as cited in Snyder et al, 2002) countered the claim by arguing that there is no use for goal-directed motivation if there are no strategies to be implemented.According to Horton and Wallander (2001 as cited in Hagen, Myers & Mackintosh, 2005) handling challenging events or tasks in life triumphantly reinforces hopefulness. Having high levels of hope helps people maintain approach-related state even though they cannot reach their targeted goal (Bruininks & Malle, 2005). According to Polivy & Herman (2002), people believe that what caused their failure can be regulated on their next attempt and if they perceived positive results, their previous failures will not hinder them from doing better and trying again.If experience of mastery strengthens agentic thinking, individuals will then be able to successfully handle any difficult situation they would be placed it. Individuals with high levels of hope are much more confident in their ability to handle and overcome difficulties. They have a stronger thinking that everything would turn out for the best. (Hagen, Myers & Mackintosh 2005) thus making them more effective in achieving their goals. They gain positivity from the process they go through as they come closer in attaining their goal (Snyder, Cheavens & Sympson, 1997) and experiences of success make an impact and improve the individuals thinking processes in general (Curry et al, 1997).

Locus of Hope Hope starts with the individual, it is a process that is cognitive in nature and somehow forgets about the role of the environment the surrounds the individual (Bernardo, 2010). This idea made Bernardo think about a way to extend Snyders (2002) Hope Theory.Seeing the collective nature of the Philippines, Bernardo (2010) proposed the Locus of hope theory. This concept not only looks into the individuals own level of hope, but it also sees the role of the environment as a component of hope. Agency and Pathways become more complex as internal and external factors become a factor in these components of hope. Internal Locus of Hope is focused with the individual itself it also leans toward the Agency aspect of the Hope theory. External Locus of Hope on the other hand becomes more complex for there are three main factors that affect hope externally. These are peers, family, and spiritual. Peers mainly focused on agency while family and spiritual are concerned with the pathways component of Hope.The collectivist orientation of Asian culture was considered in the conceptualization of locus of hope. The Asian context takes into view the role that interpersonal relationships play in the cognitions, emotions, behaviors, and motivations of individuals. While the Western context places salience on the individuals characteristics and beliefs. These different cultural contexts would then play a role in the construction and nature of hope and ones sources of hope. In short, the internal and external Locus of Hope sees the importance of collectivist societies to determine which between the two Locus of Hope components are more evident to the individual.To further understand this extension, the internal locus of hope focuses on the individuals own hopefulness while the external locus of hope focuses on family, friends, and even God as a source of hopefulness (Bernardo, 2010).

Goal TheoryGoal and goal setting are two different but somehow related concepts. These two main concepts about goal will be a guide in distinguishing goal setting as a related variable to self-regulatory learning and hope theory.According to Elliot & Dweck (1998 as cited in Snyder et al, 2002) the goal theory suggests that there is a causal relationship between goal orientations and how the individual responses depicted in the behavior in academic settings. Whether a particular kind of goal orientation is adaptive or not adaptive depends on people's' cognitive ability (Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. 2002). In the achievement goal framework, two goals were distinguished and these are mastery goals and performance goals (Darnon, Butera & Harackiewicz, 2007). Goal orientation has a dichotomy between mastery and performance goals (Dweck & Leggett, 1988 as cited in Radosevich, Rota, Law, & Ki, 2007)Mastery goal focuses on the individuals belief that effort and outcome co-vary. The attribution belief sustains the goal-directed behavior over time (Weiner, 1979, 1986 as cited in Ames, 1992). Individuals who prefer this type of goal orientation focuses on developing new skills and abilities, attempting to comprehend their tasks, develop their competency levels or achieve mastery based on personal standards (Ames, 1992b; Brophy, 1983b; Meece, Blumenfeld & Hoyle, 1988; Nicholls, 1989 as cited in Ames, 1992). There is a positive connection between mastery goals and learning (Covington & Omelich, 1984; Elliot & McGregor, 1999; Grant & Dweck, 2003, Licht & Dweck, 1984 as cited in Darnon, Butera & Harackiewicz, 2007). Individuals who use mastery-approach goals established greater performance goals and spend more effort to reach these goals (Radosevich et al., 2004; VandeWalle et al., 1999 as cited in Radosevich, Rot, Law, & Kim, 2007).Learning goal orientation was positively associated to the amount of resources participants give to their goals and how they commit themselves in cognitive self-regulation. Performance-avoid goal orientation, on the other hand, was negatively associated to cognitive self-regulation. Participants who practice motivational processes looked at bringing down their goals when his/her performance is criticized due to it being sub-par, and lowering goals was a role of learning goal and performance-avoid goal orientation. (Radosevich, D.J., Vaidyanathan, V. T., Yeo, S., Radosevich, D. M. 2004).Performance goals correspond to the persons aspiration to show his or her competencies by getting publicly recognized and earning positive feedbacks (Darnon, Butera & Harackiewicz, 2007). They focus on the individuals abilities and self-worth (Covington, 1984; Dweck, 1986; Nicholls, 1984b as cited in Ames, 1992) and their abilities are shown by excelling and doing better than other people, exceeding the standards or achieving without putting so much effort (Ames, 1984b; Covington, 1984 as cited in Ames, 1992). With this, learning is only seen as a potential way to reach their desired goal (Nicholls, 1979, 1989 as cited in Ames, 1992) and the individuals attention is solely focused on success. Dweck and his colleagues (Dweck, 1986; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliot & Dweck, 1988 as cited in Ames, 1992) also explained that performance goals are associated with motivational patterns that involve avoiding challenging and difficult tasks. In goal setting, expecting to be successful does not assure that learners will set themselves attaining their goals to be followed through by effort and success. Elliot and other researchers (Elliot, 1997; Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996 as cited in Elliot, McGregor & Gable, 1999) further divided performance goals into two-performance approach goal, which refers to the attainment of competence relative to other people, and performance avoidance goal, which refers to avoiding incompetence relative to others.Elliot, McGregor & Gable (1999) view performance approach similarly as mastery goals conceptually in that both are grounded in the seeing achievement as a necessity and are focused on positive possibility. However, mastery goals are focused on extrinsic achievement outcome. Performance approach goals drive efforts to plan and sustain a highly structured study routine directed towards test-worthy material (Elliot, McGregor & Gable, 1999).Performance-avoidance goals are avoidance forms of motivation. They are rooted from the individuals fear of failure and possibility of experiencing negative outcomes (Elliot, 1997 as cited in Elliot, McGregor & Gable, 1999). They conjure self-protective concerns, which prevent an individuals persistence and use of full effort in studying (Covington, 1984; Jagacinski & Nicholls, 1990 as cited in Elliot, McGregor & Gable, 1999).Mastery goals lead to motivational patterns that are linked to a quality of involvement to sustain achievement behavior. Performance goals on the other hand adopt failure-avoiding motivational patterns (Covington, 1984; Dweck, 1986; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliot & Dweck, 1988; Nicholls 1984b; 1989; Nicholls, Patashnick & Nolen, 1985 as cited in Ames, 1992). Moreover, various studies have discussed that goals influence how an individual does his or her tasks. According to Nolen (1988 as cited in Darnon, Butera & Harackiewicz, 2007), mastery goals support deep processing of the tasks while Elliot & Dweck (1988 as cited in Darnon, Butera & Harackiewicz, 2007) explained that under performance goals, attention is divided into the task and the individuals concern about the outcome of his or her performance.A learning or mastery goal orientation leads to higher performance than a performance goal orientation, and group goal setting is as central as individual goal setting (Lunenburg, 2011). However, these goal orientations represent conceptions of success and activities differently (Nicholls et al, 1989 as cited in Ames, 1992). They also differ in how individuals think about themselves, their tasks and task outcomes (Butler, 1987; Corno & Rohrkemper, 1985; Nicholls, 1984a as cited in Ames, 1992). Conversely, when students engage in tasks that are easy or they have high competence expectancy on the tasks, then both goal orientations produce the same results (Darnon, Butera & Harackiewicz, 2007).Goal Orientation has been used as a moderator in different researches. One of them is the study about the changes in school-related intrinsic motivation, the participants were asked to do self-reports concerning their school-related intrinsic motivation, goal orientations, and competence beliefs (Spinath & Steinmayr,2012). They considered goal orientations as a moderator but did not alter the result. Instead, learning goals and not performance goals have directly predicted the change in students' intrinsic motivation. Another study which used the moderating effect of mastery goal orientation was about the academic resilience of students (Sapio,2010). Students with learning disabilities participated in a study about the effects of Mastery goal orientation and LD status.This research combined the achievement emotion of hope with achievement goal theory and stretched its scope to the population of students with LD. High mastery students reported higher levels of intended effort investment compared to low mastery students. Gender and the interaction effect among gender and mastery goal orientation had a significant impact on effort.Comment by Melle: While you discuss moderation studies here: it is now clear which played the role of predictor, of moderator, of IV. And it is not clear how these connect to your problem.

Self-RegulationSelf-regulated learning (SRL) is a constructive process in which learners set goals for their learning and then try to monitor, regulate, and control their cognition, motivation, and behavior. (Pintrinch, 2000 as cited in Ferla, 2008).Learning is self-regulated (Shuell, 1988; Winne & Hadwin, 1998, as cited in Ferla, 2008). It is a combination of skill and will. The learner is self-motivated, knowledgeable on planning, controlling and evaluating his or her cognitive, motivational/affective, behavioral and contextual processes (Montalvo & Torres, 2004).According to Fitts (1964 as cited in Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1997), self-regulation is among the three phases in acquisition of motoric skills from beginners level all the way to mastery. It is also called as autonomous phase wherein the action becomes spontaneous. Self-regulation is also part of the four phases in students development of complex cognitive-motor skills (Zimmerman & Bonner, n.d. as cited in Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1997). The other phases include observation, imitation and self-control. Self-regulation is the final phase of learning. It is when individuals adapt his or her cognitive-motor skill to an environment that is ever changing. Skills can now be performed with unintentional thought and their attention can be solely focused on performance outcomes without any unpleasant consequences (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1997). Self-regulation theory was used as a theoretical lens for inferring a heuristic framework of 16 fundamental constructs that create self-regulated learning. Self-regulation constructs are interrelated. The constructs with the strongest effects on learning are the goal level, persistence, effort, and self-efficacy although, other constructs such as planning, monitoring, help seeking, and emotion control do not have significant relationship with learning (Sitzmann & Johnson, 2012). Pintrich (2000) defines self-regulated learning (SRL) as a constructive process whereby learners set goals for their learning and then attempt to monitor, regulate, and control their cognition, motivation, and behavior. Self-regulated learning then is a fusion of knowledge about fitting actions tied with motivation to pursue goals reinforced in environments that let learners to be self-directed. It is not just a developmental milestone tied to grade levels or an educational attainment tied to specific knowledge or learning. Both experience and context contribute to self-regulated learning (Paris S. & Paris A., 2001). Learning is a multidimensional process, which embodies personal features (both cognitive and emotional), and behavioral and contextual ones (Zimmerman, 1998 as cited in The International Journal of Learning Volume 17, Number 2, 2010)The research conducted by Anderson et al (2006) supported Banduras (1997) study, which underscores the importance of self-regulation in having an active lifestyle. According to Fiske and Taylor (1991 as cited in Aspinwall & Taylor 1997), Self-regulation refers to the means that people hold control and direct their actions. Furthermore, they stated that self-regulation considered the initiation and perpetuation of problem solving activities are essential to progress from the individuals present situation towards their envisioned future (Taylor et al, 1998).Pintrich (2000a, 2000b as cited in Shell & Hussman, 2006) and other studies about contemporary achievement goal theory emphasize on the difference between mastery and performance goals. These goal orientations are associated with specific control beliefs. Feelings of control are associated with active self-regulation. Self-regulation has a link to both performance and mastery goal orientations. Mastery goal orientation is associated with high levels of self-regulation strategies (Martin, Marsh & Debus, 2003 as cited in Shell &Hussman, 2006).Academic achievement is one aspect wherein the usage of self-regulated learning strategies is crucial. Academic success, as studies suggest, is highly dependent on self-regulation (Bandura, 1982, 1986; Schunk, 1984; Zimmerman, 1983 as cited in Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986) and achievements relies on using self-regulation particularly in settings that are competitive and evaluative. According to various researches cited by Wolters (2010), students who engage in self-regulated learning or who use self-regulated learning strategies tend to excel in their academic performance.Self-regulated learning strategies individuals beliefs about their potential to learn and increase their interest in task mastery (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1997). Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1986) defined self-regulated learning strategies as actions directed at gathering information or abilities that includes agency, goals and pathways by a learner. Using self-regulated learning strategies are also linked with the individuals awareness and knowledge of using these strategies properly (McCombs, 1984; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990 as cited in Ames, 1992). A learners level of ability has a significant effect on learning strategies use while the environment serves as a determinant that helps how a learner learns and what strategies are engaged to improve learning. (Nambiar, 2009) Good strategy users are characterized as those who are metacognitively active by planning, monitoring, evaluating their progress and learning strategy use. They utilize various strategies to be able to understand, remember and organize the information they are learning (Pressley et al., 1987; Weinstein, Husman, & Dierking, 2000; Weinstein & Mayer, 1986; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1988; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001 as cited in Shell & Hussman, 2006).This study will focus on the cognitive/metacognitive and resource management components of Self-regulation. Pintrich and his colleagues (1991 as cited in Chen, 2002) discusses that metacognition is the main aspect of self-regulation. Planning, monitoring and regulating activities are included under this component. Setting goals and outcomes is under planning. Students who are self-regulated foresee and organize certain performance or learning outcomes. Upon doing so, they monitor the efficiency of their learning strategies. Monitoring ones progress is important because it aids the students to concentrate on more effective learning methods. With this, it helps them manage their time better as well (Zimmerman, 1989; Zimmerman & Paulsen, 1995 as cited in Chen, 2002). Resource management aspect of Self-regulation focuses on regulating the physical and social environment of the individual. This component includes the study environment management, help seeking, and effort regulation. An ideal study area is a place that is free of visual and auditory distractions. A quiet area helps an individual concentrate better (Chen, 2002). Several studies (Ames & Lau, 1982; Karabenick & Knapp, 1991 as cited in Chen, 2002) have shown that those students who are achievement-motivated and task-oriented are more likely to ask help from others if needed. This supports that asking for assistance in academic matters is an appropriate learning strategy. Furthermore, Ryan and Pintrich (1998 as cited in Chen, 2002) explained that help seeking is also a form of social interaction and social motives will most likely affect the use of help seeking. Effort regulation explains the individuals ability to deal with failing and build his resiliency. According to Corno (1994, p. 229 as cited in Chen 2002) effort regulation or volition is the tendency to maintain focus and effort toward goals despite potential distractions. In an academic setting, this is used to handle distractions and still excel in learning skills.

Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1992 as cited in Zimmerman & Kitsantas,1997) hypothesized that utilizing self-regulated learning strategies stimulates students to associate negative performance outcomes with the strategies used instead of their personal ability, effort and other resources. Just like (Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1997 as cited in Sitzmann, 2011) findings that when the self-regulators confronted failure, they have a tendency to ascribe it to the poor usage of learning strategies. And attributing failure to deficiency in implementing the strategies sustains hope (Anderson & Jennings, 1980; Clifford, 1986; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1992 as cited in Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1997).Comment by Melle: You discussed each variable separately but not enough discussions on why you should be predicting a moderator and the other research problems.

SynthesisComment by Melle: Devote one substantial section of you lit on the moderator problem (problems 1 and 4). Devote one substantial section of your lit on which plays a greater role: external or internal (problems 2 and 3).With all the concepts like Hope theory (Snyder, 2002) extended through the Locus of Hope (Bernardo,2010); and goal setting (Schunk,1990). It somehow makes sense that they are all link with Self-regulation and Self-regulatory learning (Zimmerman, 1990, 1995, 2011). This part of the study sums everything that has been discussed so far by combining and explaining the links between these main concepts.Comment by Melle: Cite literature on this.Comment by Melle: You should present more substantial literature about these linksUnlike other studies which saw hope as an affective component (Aspinwall & Leaf, 2002; Averill et al., 1990; Bruininks & Malle, 2005 as cited in Tong et al, 2010). Snyder and his colleagues (Snyder et al, 1991 as cited in Curry et al, 1997; Snyder, 1994 as cited in Tong et al, 2010) regarded hope as a cognition. Following the cognitive model, a goal setting frameworks define hope as the individuals motivation to remain involved with the outcome expectancies and can perceive ways to reach those outcomes (Bruininks & Malle, 2005). Cognitions come first and lead to the goals that people choose which then lead to achievement. This suggests the possible moderating factor of goal setting to hope (Snyder, 2000 as cited in Snyder et al, 2002)Students with high levels of hope can form their own goals evidently. They usually conceptualize their goals based on how they performed their previous tasks. With this, they set goals that are more difficult and set higher performance standards (Snyder, Feldman, Taylor, Schroeder, & Adams, 2000 as cited in Snyder et al, 2002). They are capable of coming up with various alternative pathways to reach their goals if the principal pathway does not seem to work. They also have a firm belief that they can actually use these pathways in reaching their goals (Snyder, Cheavens & Sympson, 1997) at the same time; they are open to trying out other new approaches (Tierney, 1995 as cited in Snyder et al, 2002).The study conducted by Covington (2000 as cited in Snyder et al, 2002) asserts that having the desire to learn new skills and master tasks is reflected in ones learning goals. Individuals who prefer this type of goal actively engage in their own learning through assessments of their tasks, carefully planning the strategies or approaches to be used and monitoring the progress they make. Thus, hope can be a reason why individuals prefer one type of goal over the other which closes some research gaps in the goal theory literature.In terms of academic goals, a study by Okun et al (2006) discussed that students with greater academic goals perform in a positively aroused state compared to students with less academic goals. Therefore, it can be seen that having a goal, setting a goal, and doing things to reach a goal would create a positive outcome in these achievement-related goals (Lopez, 1999).It is important to note that hope theory and goal-setting theory share some similar pathways wherein the goal-setting theory emphasizes on the outcome expectancies which is connected to the how the individuals achieve their desired goals (Curry et al, 1997). With that, it can be said that Hopeful people strongly consider that they can achieve their goals (Snyder, 2002 as cited in Tong et al, 2010).Various researches conducted on the actual experiences of hope depict that hopeful people often recognize the impression that they can do little to reach their goals (Bruininks & Malle 2005; Roseman, Spindel, & Jose, 1990; Smith & Ellsworth, 1985 as cited in Tong et al, 2010). Tong and colleagues (2010) pointed out the association of hope with the individuals beliefs that their goals are attainable in spite of acknowledging the fact that at times they do not know how to achieve them. These researches somehow contradict with the pathways component of hope and focused more about its agency.Going back, there are two appraisals of hope agency and pathways thinking denote individuals believe that they can obtain their goals through their own means (Tong et al, 2010). To make things easy, agency is the will while pathways are the ways in reaching a goal (Peterson et al, 2006).Considering peers as source of assistance or help-seeking behavior is linked to mastery goal orientation (Karabenick, 2003; Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Ryan & Pintrich, 1997 as cited in Darnon, Butera & Harackiewicz, 2007). This might also be linked to external locus of hope where the environment plays a big role, this time in hope (Bernardo, 2010).Mastery goals increase the individuals interest and engagement in learning. Application of effective learning strategies characterizes active engagement. In addition, using learning strategies are dependent on the certainty that their effort brings success and failure can be overcome by a change in strategy. (Garner, 1990; McCombs, 1984 as cited in Ames, 1992).Performance approach goals influences an individuals self-regulation positively. Obtaining positive benefits are also connected to having mastery goals (Midgley et al, 2001; Pintrich, 2000a as cited in Shell & Hussman, 2006). Goals play a big role in self-regulated learning and the strategies involved in the process

Conceptual Framework

Figure 1.The-moderating effect of Goal setting to Locus of Hope and Self-regulation.Comment by Melle: The major concept of your theis moderation is not at all elaborated in your framework. Rework discussion of frameworkThe figure above shows the interaction between these three variables together with their sub- variables. There are two starting points: Internal Locus of Hope and External Locus of Hope. The two sub-variables would be tested whether, which among them affects self-regulated learning more. Before going to self-regulated learning, there are moderating variables that would be inserted to test its effect to the significance of the two Locus of Hope variables.Comment by Melle: Imprecise use of the term interactionComment by Melle: Imprecise use of term.Comment by Melle: What do subvariables mean?Comment by Melle: Imprecise use of term.

To further elaborate the framework, we look into Snyders Hope theory, which refers to hope as a persons mental processes regarding their expectations to reach their goals. This concept only involves expectations but there are other aspects of hope such as determination, commitment, and strategies to attain goals (Bernardo, 2010). Bernardo (2010) expounds Snyders hope theory and develops the Locus of Hope by adding the external factors such as family, peers, and that even God can have great effects in a persons ability to be hopeful. Furthermore, Snyder (2002 as cited in Tong et al, 2010) states there is this certain belief that hopeful people can do something to achieve their goals.Hope theory proposes that goals themselves do not produce behavior. According to Snyder (as cited in Tong et al, 2010), hope is comprised of two appraisals agency thinking and pathways thinking. Agency thinking pertains to the capability to execute means to attain personal goals. It depicts the cognitive impetus that turns ones can do attitude into being confident that they will attain their goals. Pathways thinking refer to the capability to generate those means. The experience of both entails experiencing hope itself. However they are not synonymous, both agency and pathways are essential in hopeful thinking (Snyder et al 1991, 2000). According to Conti (2000 as cited in Snyder et al 2000), hope helps students to face problems focusing on future success thus increasing the chances of attaining their goals. Hope is linked to believing that individuals can attain their goals regardless if they know how to obtain them. (Tong et al, 2010)Self-regulation also plays a great role in the study habits of individuals (Ramdass & Zimmerman, 2011). It is the process by which individuals become aware of their cognition, affect, behavior, and their surroundings to help them attain their academic goals (Boekaerts & Corno, 2005; Zimmerman, 2000 as cited in Ramdass & Zimmerman, 2011). Self-regulation has 3 functioning areas: cognitive, motivational and metacognitive. This study aims to further study the cognitive aspect of self-regulation wherein a variety of strategies are used to complete the tasks required for law students.These learning strategies are Knowledge which can be acquired through lecture, reading, audio/visual, demonstration, or guided observations, question and answer period; Comprehension and application which can be acquired through Discussions, multimedia CBT, Socratic didactic method, reflection. Activities such as surveys, role-playing, case studies, fishbowls, etc.; Analysis which can be acquired through On-the-Job-Training (OJT), practice by doing (some direction or coaching is required), simulated job settings (to include CBT simulations); Synthesis, which is used in real situations. Also may be trained by using several high level activities coupled with OJT. And Evaluation that is normally developed on own (informal learning) through self-study or learning through mistakes, but mentoring and coaching can speed the process (Bloom, 1956).

Statement of the Problem (Research Questions)

This study will explore the following research questions:1. What is the moderating effect of goal setting to locus of hope and self-regulation in a law school environment?2. When does the goal orientation more strongly related to locus of hope and self-regulation?Comment by Melle: But in the framework you are not looking at the correlation between locus of hope and goal orientation?Focus only on which locus of hope, internal or external, more strongly predicts self-regulated learning which can be articulated in problem 3.3. How does locus of hope influence self-regulation and the learners preferred mode of goal setting amongst law students?4. How does student goal setting as a moderator influence learners self-regulation and locus of hope in a law school environment?Comment by Melle: This is ezsentially problem 1. Hence, have only two problems.

HypothesisComment by Melle: Revise hypotheses according yo how you revise the problems.Where is your hypothesis for problems 2/3?The researchers hypothesized that Locus of Hope predicts a positive, strong relationship with Self-regulation moderated by Goal Setting. a. Mastery Goal Orientation has the highest moderation effect on Internal Locus of Hope and Self-Regulation compared to the performance approach and avoidance approach. b. Performance approach has the highest moderation effect on External Locus of hope and Self-Regulation compared to the performance approach and avoidance approach.

Mastery Goal OrientationSelf- Regulation

Performance Approach

Performance Avoidance

Internal Locus of Hope

Figure 2.1: Interaction plots

Performance Approach

Mastery Goal OrientationSelf-Regulation

External Locus of HopePerformance Avoidance

Figure 2.2: Interaction plotsDefinition of TermsComment by Melle: Arrange the terms not alphabetically but in some logical ways, say, as they appear in the framework.Hope is described as a persons motivation to goals and positive outcomes (Snyder et al, 1991; Snyder, 2000 as cited in Bruininks & Malle, 2005).Comment by Melle: Where are your operational definitions? That is the measures of the constructs?Internal Locus of Hope refers to the individuals own hopefulness (Bernardo, 2010).External Locus of Hope refers to the external sources of an individuals hopefulness, which includes family, friends, and even God (Bernardo, 2010).Goals are cognitive constructs that can be activated by different stimuli. Furthermore, goals are what an individual wants to complete or to accomplish thus making them highly subjective and can be accomplished through actions. (Kruglanski, 1996 as cited in Moskowitz & Grant, 2009)Goal Setting refers to thinking or creating a goal then modifying it when it is necessary (Schunk, 1990).Mastery Goal Setting this type of goal orientation focuses on developing new skills and abilities. In addition, one achieves mastery based on his personal standards (Ames, 1992)Performance Approach Goal Setting drives efforts to plan and sustain a highly structured study routine directed towards test-worthy material (Elliot, McGregor & Gable, 1999).Performance Avoidance Goal Setting is an avoidance form of motivation and is rooted from the individuals fear of failure and possibility of experiencing negative outcomes (Elliot, 1997 as cited in Elliot, McGregor & Gable, 1999).Self-regulation it is when individuals adapt his or her cognitive-motor skill to an environment that is ever changing and the skills are performed with an unintentional thought that makes an individual focus more on his performance results (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1997).Self-regulated learning is a constructive process in which learners set goals for their learning and then try to monitor, regulate, and control their cognition, motivation, and behavior. (Pintrinch, 2000 as cited in Ferla, 2008). Significance of the StudyThe study would be an important piece of information in getting new insights inside the self-regulated learning techniques, goal setting, and hopes of law students. It will give a better understanding for aspiring individuals who want to pursue law. Aside from that, the study would also extend the scope of The Locus of Hope Theory (Bernardo, 2010) in a particular group of people.Scope and DelimitationComment by Melle: What else? This study only covers the theory of Locus of Hope that includes the internal and external factors from which an individual acquires his or her hopeful thinking. The Goal theory will only focus on Mastery, Performance Approach and Performance Avoidance goal orientations. Also, this study will only highlight Self-regulation through using cognitive/metacognitive and resource management learning strategies. The results of the study will only be applicable to law students from the different universities in Metro Manila.

Chapter IIMETHODOLOGYResearch DesignComment by Melle: Which problem will be addressed using quanti and which problem should be addressed using quali? State up front in the introduction and in the abstractThe study will follow a mixed-method research design. To be more specific, the researchers will be using Sequential Explanatory design. This design involves two phases- quantitative and qualitative phases (see Figure 2). It starts with the collection and analysis of quantitative data subsequently followed by the qualitative phase of the study. The qualitative phase further verifies the results acquired from the quantitative phase of the research. In the Sequential Explanatory design, the priority is typically unequal since the researchers give greater emphasis on the quantitative methods than qualitative methods because the study begins quantitatively. Integration of data from both quantitative and qualitative measures is done at the data interpretation stage.For the quantitative phase, the researchers will be using Explanatory cross-sectional quantitative design. This quantitative design will explain how the variables of the study operate and the data will be collected at one time. The researchers will then compare data across different participants. This phase will focus on the effect of Locus of Hope to Self-regulation. The study will also highlight the intensity of both internal and external locus of hope to the cognitive area of self-regulation. Goal setting would be used as a moderator for the two concepts.Comment by Melle: Which participants For the qualitative phase, the researchers will be using the case study qualitative approach. The researchers will select a few students from all the participants to partake in a detailed, in-depth data collection and the results will further explain the results gathered from the quantitative phase of the study. Furthermore, this phase will focus on the cognitive area of self-regulation. Extreme scorers from the quantitative phase would be interviewed about the self-regulatory strategies that they use to attain their goals.

Both the quantitative and qualitative phases are imperative for this research. The quantitative phase will provide the primary data that will give more structure to the study. Furthermore, the quantitative part will determine which participants will be qualified to participate in the qualitative phase of the study. The qualitative part will then verify the results that will be obtained from the quantitative measures. Moreover, this part of the study will further provide additional information about the different learning strategies used by the extreme scorers for both Internal and External Locus of Hope and explain how they experience self-regulatory learning. Comment by Melle: describeComment by Melle: How?Comment by Melle: What results? How will these be verified?Comment by Melle: You have 4 problems, although I am suggesting that these be broekn into just 2. To which problems will the figure below apply?Comment by Melle: In this figure, dont give a generic textbook style figure. Write these in specific terms of your problem. What data? What results?QualitativeInterpretation based on Quantitative Qualitative results Quantitative

Identify results for follow-upQualitative Data Collection, Data Analysis and ResultsInterpretation of Quantitative Qualitative ResultsQuantitative Data Collection, Data Analysis and Results

Figure 3. Sequential Explanatory design procedural figure.This figure illustrates the procedures following the Sequential Explanatory design. It first starts with the quantitative aspect collection of quantitative data, data analysis and results. Before proceeding to the qualitative part of the study, the researchers must identify which of the quantitative results require further explanation through utilizing qualitative measures. After identifying the quantitative results for follow-up, proceed with the collection of qualitative data, data analysis and results. The last part of the procedure includes the interpretation and integration of the results acquired from both quantitative and qualitative measures. Quantitative PhaseSample and Sampling DesignTwo hundred students currently enrolled in law schools in the Philippines (particularly in Metro Manila) will be the target participants for this research. Purposive sampling will be used since the researchers have a set of criteria to be qualified to participate in the study.InstrumentsThree scales will be used to measure the three variables in this study. The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) will be used to measure Self-regulation. It is a 7-point Likert scale. It has 81 items, however since the study will focus on the learning strategies aspect of self-regulation, only the 24 items measuring cognitive/metacognitve strategies and resource management strategies will be used. It has a Cronbach Alpha of 0.71. To measure Goal setting, Personal Achievement Goal Orientation scale will be used. It is a 5-point scale with three subscales, which are Mastery (Cronbach Alpha = 0.86), Performance Approach (Cronbach Alpha = 0.86) and Performance Avoidance (Cronbach Alpha = 0.75). Lastly, Bernardos Locus of Hope Scale (LHS) will be used to measure Locus of Hope. It is a 40-item self-report questionnaire. Items are scored on a 4-point Likert scale. It has a Cronbach Alpha of 0.80 for internal locus of hope,.91 for external family, .87 external peers, and .95 for external spiritual.The three scales would be integrated into one scale to create a more valid and cohesive result. The new test would consist of a 5-point Likert scale to create uniformity among the different scales. Also, a pilot test would be conducted to ensure the validity of the integrated scale.

ProceduresThe researchers will be collecting survey data from 200 students at different law schools. The mean age of the participants is ___ with a range of 19 to 29. Participants will be provided with a questionnaire regarding the three variables in the study which are the Self-regulation focusing on the cognitive and metacognitive strategies and resource management strategies, goal setting and locus of hope. The participants were instructed to complete the questionnaire and completed it on the day itself. The data would then be analyzed using Statistica. Multiple regression would be used to find the relationship between variables. Participants with significant results would be called for an interview to participate in the second part of the study. After collecting the quantitative measures, qualitative measures will follow. The participants will be interviewed and this will be used as a verification of the quantitative results.Data Analysis Multiple regression will be used to analyze each variable. First, independent variables would be placed in the model as predictors of Self-regulation. A separate calculation would be done to test the interaction between the Independent variable and Goal setting. If the interaction between the two variables is significant, then there would be a moderator effect that is present in the study. Interaction plots will be used to illustrate the results.

Qualitative PhaseSample and Sampling Design The participants who will attain extreme scores in the quantitative phase will be qualified to partake in the qualitative phase of the study.

Instruments The researchers developed an interview schedule (see Appendix) based on the research question formulated for the qualitative phase of the study.Comment by Melle: Describe these interview schedule, not just have readers refer to appendixProcedures The researchers will be conducting a few individual in-depth interviews and arrange a meeting with the qualified participants. The participants will be briefed and asked for their consent regarding their participation in the study. Audio recorders will be used in recording the interviews. The researchers will debrief the participants after their interviews.Data AnalysisThere will be several steps in analyzing the data. First, the researchers will read the entire description of the experience by listening to interview tapes, transcribing and reading the transcripts. Second, the descriptions that will be acquired from the interview transcriptions will be read repeatedly. Third, significant statements will be highlighted and examined. Finally, formulation of themes from the acquired data will be done.

Methodological limitationsFor the quantitative phase, one of the methodological limitations can be the online version of the questionnaires. This would entail that some extraneous and confounding variables might be present when participant would answer the questionnaires. Another limitation includes the scales being self-report, so there might be a possibility that some participants would be bluffing their answers to some of the questions in the survey. For the qualitative phase, since this study will use the case study approach the number of the participants will be too small and the results will be difficult to be generalized to a larger population. In general, following a Sequential Explanatory design will be time consuming since there are two phases needed to complete in order to generate and integrate valid and reliable data for the study.

References Al-Ansari, E. M. (2005). The dynamic interplay of student motivation and cognition in the College of Education students at Kuwait University. Social Behavior and Personality, 33, 341350. doi:10.2224/sbp.2005.33.4.341 Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, Structures and Student Motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1992, Vol. 84, No. 3, 261-271 Anderson, E., Wojcik, J.R., Winett, R.A. & Williams, D.M. (2006). SocialCognitive Determinants of Physical Activity: The Influence of Social Support, Self-Efficacy, Outcome Expectations, and Self-Regulation Among Participants in a Church-Based Health Promotion Study. Health Psychology, 2006, Vol. 25, No. 4, 510-520 Artino, A.R. et. al. (2012). Achievement Goal Structures and Self-Regulated Learning: Relationships and Changes in Medical School. Academic Medicine, Vol. 87, No. 10 / October 2012. Aspinwall, L. and Taylor, E. (1997). A Stich in Time: Self-Regulation and Proactive Coping. Psychological Bulletin, 1997, Vol. 121, No. 3, 417-436 Bell, P.D. & Akroyd, D. (2006) Can Factors Related to Self-Regulated Learning Predict Learning Achievement in Undergraduate Asynchronous Web-based Courses? International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. Oct. 2006. http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Oct_06/article01.htm Bembenutty, H. (2011). Meaningful and Maladaptive Homework Practices: The Role of Self- Efficacy and Self-Regulation. Journal of Advanced Academics, Volume 22 , Number 3 , Spring 2011 , pp. 448473 Bernardo, A. (2010). Extending hope theory: Internal and external locus of trait hope. Personality and Individual Differences 49 (2010) 944949 Bloom B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc. Brten, I., Samuelstuen, M. S., & Stromso, H. I. (2004). Do students' self-efficacy beliefs moderate the effects of performance goals on self-regulatory strategy use? Educational Psychology, 24, 231247. doi:10.1080/0144341032000160164 Brown, C. A. (2005). An investigation of the influence of metacognition, reading comprehension skill, and background knowledge on studying. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, New York. Bruininks, P. & Malle, B.F. (2005) Distinguishing Hope from Optimism and realted Affective States. Motivation and Emotion, 2005, Vol. 29, No.4, 327-355 Buric, I. & Soric, I., (2012). The role of test hope and hopelessness in self-regulated learning: Relations between volitional strategies, cognitive appraisals and academic achievement. Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 523529 Chen, C. S. (2002). Self-regulated Learning Strategies and Achievement in an Introduction to Information Systems Course. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, Vol. 20, No. 1, Spring 2002 Cheng, E. (2011). The Role of Self-regulated Learning in Enhancing Learning Performance. The International Journal of Research and Review, March 2011, Vol. 6 Issue 1 Curry, L., Snyder, C.R., Cook, D., Ruby, B. & Rehm, M. (1997). Role of Hope in Academic and Sport Achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1997, Vol. 73, No. 6, 1257-1267 Darnon, C., Butera, F. & Harackiewicz, J.M. (2007). Achievement Goals in Social Interactions: Learning with Mastery vs. Performance Goals. Motivation and Emotion, 2007, Vol. 31, 61-70 Eilam, B. & Aharon, I. (2003). Students planning in the process of self-regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology 28(2003)304334 Elliot, A.J, McGregor, H.A & Gable, S. (1999). Achievement Goals, Study Strategies and Exam Performacne: A Mediational Analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1999, Vol. 9, No. 3, 549-563Ferla J. (2008). The effect of student cognitions about learning on self-regulated learning: A study with freshmen in higher education. Retrieved from http://users.ugent.be/~mvalcke/CV/Doc_18_april.pdf Hagen, K., Myers, B. & Mackintosh, V. (2005). Hope, Social Support and Behavioral Problesm in At-Risk Children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 2005, Vol. 75, No. 2, 211-219 Hegarty, N., Brasco, R. and Lu, F.L. (2012). What motivates students in graduate school? An empirical study. Business Education and Accreditation, 2012, Vol. 4, No. 2, 39-47The International Journal of Learning. Volume 17, Number 2, 2010, http://www.Learning-Journal.com, ISSN 1447-9494. Common Ground, Ana Veiga Simo, Maria Assuno Flores, All Rights Reserved, Permissions:cg-support@commongroundpublishing.comJuntunen, C. & Wettersten, K.B. (2006). Work Hope: Development and Initial Validation of a Measure. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 2006, Vol. 53, No. 1, 94-106 Lemos, M. (1999). Students' goals and self-regulation in the classroom. International Journal of Educational Research 31 (1999) 471}485 Lopez, D. (1999). Social cognitive influence on Self-Regulated Learning: The impact of Action Control Beliefs and Academic Goals on Achievement-related outcomes. Learning and Individual Differences, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1999 Lunenburg F. (2011) Goal-Setting Theory of Motivation. International Journal of Management, Business and Administration, 2011, Vol. 15, No. 1Nambiar R. (2009) Learning Strategy Research Where Are We Now?The Reading Matrix 2009 Volume 9, Number 2, September 2009Okun, M.A., Fairlhome, C., Karoly, P., Ruehlman, L. S., Newton, C. (2006). Academic goals, goal process cognition, and exam performance among college student. Learning and Individual Differences 16 (2006) 255265 Paris S. & Paris A. (2001) Classroom Applications of Research on Self-Regulated. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 89101 Copyright 2001, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Peterson, S.J., Gerhardt, M.W. & Rhode, J.C. (2006). Hope, learning goals, and task performance. Personality and Individual Differences 40 (2006) 10991109 Polivy, J. & Herman, C.P. (2002). If at First You Dont Succeed: False Hopes of Self-Change. American Psychologist, 2002, Vol. 57, No. 9, 677-689 Ramdass, D., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2011). Developing self-regulation skills: The important role of homework. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22, 194218 Sapio, M. (2010) "Mastery goal orientation, hope, and effort among students with learning disabilities" ETD Collection for Fordham University. Paper AAI3420963. Retrieved from: http://fordham.bepress.com/dissertations/AAI3420963Seay, C.H. (2010). An Examination of Factors Influencing Student Performance and Persistence in a Heavily-Text Based Secondary Online Learning Environment. Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations. Paper 287 Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacy during self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 25, 71-86 Shunk, D. (1996). Goal and self-evaluative influences during childrens cognitive skill learning. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 359-382 Sitzmann T., Johnson S. (2012) The Best Laid Plans: Examining the Conditions under which a Planning Learning and Reduces Attrition. Retrieved from http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/business/FacultyResearch/workingPapers/test/Sitzmann%20Planning%20Intervention.pdf Sitzmann T. (2011) A Meta-Analysis of Self-Regulated Learning in Work-Related Training and Attainment: What We Know and Where We Need to Go. Psychological Bulletin. Retrieved from http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/business/Faculty-Research/workingPapers/test/Sitzmann_Self-Regulation%20Meta-Analysis.pdf Shell, D.F. & Hussman, J. (2008). Control, Motivation, Affect and Strategic Self-Regulation in the College Classroom: A Multidimensional Phenomenon. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2008, Vol. 100, No. 2, 443-459 Snyder, C.R., Cheavens, J. & Sympson, S.C. (1997). Hope: An Individual Motive for Social Commerce. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 1997, Vol. 1, No. 2, 107-118 Snyder, C.R., Shorey, H., Cheavens, J., Pulvers, K., Adams, V. & Wiklund, C. (2002). Hope and Academic Success in College. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2002, Vol 94, No. 4, 820-826Spinath, B.; Steinmayr, R. (2012). Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol 104(4), Nov 2012, 1135-1148. doi: 10.1037/a0028115

Stizman, T., & Ely, K. (2011). A Meta-Analysis of Self-Regulated Learning in Work-Related Training and Educational Attainment: What We Know and Where We Need to Go. Psychological Bulletin, 2011, Vol. 137, No. 3, 421442. Taylor, S., Pham, L., Rivkin, I. and Armor D. (1998). Harnessing the Imagination: Mental Simulation, Self-Regulation and Coping. American Psychologist, 1998, Vol. 53, No. 4, 429-239 Tong, E., Fredrickson, B., Chang, W. & Lim, Z. (2010). Re-examining hope: The roles of agency thinking and pathways thinking. Cognition and Emotion, 2012, 24 (7), 1207-1215 Wolters, C. (2010). Self-Regulated Learning and the 21st century competencies Zimmerman, B. J. & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a Structured Interview for Assessing Student Use of Self-Regualted Learning Strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 1986, Vol. 23, No. 4, 614-628 Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: An Overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3 Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-regulation involves more than metacognition: A social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychologist, 30(4), 217 Zimmerman, B.J. & Kitsantas, A. (1997). Developmental Phases in Self-Regulation: Shifting from Process Goals to Outcome Goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1997, Vol. 89, No. 1, 29-3

Appendix

Appendix A

Good day! We are undergraduate students in Psychology at De La Salle University-Manila. We are currently collecting data for our thesis about law and graduate students. We are requesting that you allot a few minutes of your time to complete a short questionnaire about your thoughts, feelings, and behaviors regarding certain experiences and concerns. The confidentiality of your responses is guaranteed. If you have questions regarding the study, please send your queries to this email address: carlosceline@yahoo.comThank you very much!

Sincerely, Celine Dionne M. Carlos, Lanz Aidan L. Olives, & Stephanie Clare T. Rojas

Please fill out the blanks with the specific information requested.

Age: ____Gender: ____Contact number: __________________ Email address: ________________________Year & Degree:_______________________College/University:____________________Hours you spend studying (classes not included): ______________

Please READ carefully and rate the following items based on your behavior in class. Please DONT ANSWER RANDOMLY. Your rating should be on a 7- point scale where 1= not at all true of me to 7=very true of me.1. During class time I often miss important points because Im thinking of other things.12345

2. I'm certain I can master the skills taught in class this year.12345

3. When reading for this course, I make up questions to help focus my reading.12345

4. I can think of many ways to get out of a problem.12345

5. When I become confused about something Im reading for this class, I go back and try to figure it out.12345

6. I would avoid participating in class if it meant that other students would think I know a lot.12345

7. If course readings are difficult to understand, I change the way I read the material.12345

8. I will attain my life goals by trusting God12345

9. Its important to me that I dont look stupid in class. 12345

10. Before I study new course material thoroughly, I often skim it to see how it is organized. 12345

11. Even if I do well in school, it will not help me have the kind of life I want when I grow up.12345

12. I ask myself questions to make sure I understand the material that I have been studying in class.12345

13. I am confident that my parents will support me in the goals that are important to me.12345

14. I try to change the way I study in order to fit the course requirements and the instructors teaching style.12345

15. If other students found out I did well on a test, I would tell them it was just luck even if that wasnt the case.12345

16. I often find that I have been reading for this class but dont know what it was all about.12345

17. I make my health a priority in life.12345

18. I try to think through a topic and decide what I am supposed to learn from it rather than just reading it over when studying.12345

19. When Ive figured out how to do a problem, my teacher gives me more challenging problems to think about. 12345

20. When studying for this course I try to determine which concepts I dont understand well.12345

21. I count on my friends to think of different ways of reaching the goals that are important to me.12345

22. When I study for this class, I set goals for myself in order to direct my activities in each study period. 12345

23. I would prefer to do class work that is familiar to me, rather than work I would have to learn how to do.12345

24. If I get confused taking notes in class, I make sure I sort it out afterwards.12345

25. I energetically pursue my goals.12345

26. Its important to me that other students in my class think I am good at my class work.12345

27. My parents have lots of ways of helping me attain my goals.12345

28. Its important to me that I learn a lot of new concepts this year.12345

29. There are many things I worry about.12345

30. My teacher presses me to do thoughtful work.12345

31. When I am discouraged, I know that God will provide ways to solve the problems I face.12345

32. I'm certain I can figure out how to do the most difficult class work.12345

33. My friends always support me in the pursuit of my life goals.12345

34. Some students fool around the night before a test. Then if they dont do well, they can say that is the reason. How true is this of you?12345

35. Even when I am discouraged, I know my parents have ways to help me solve my problems.12345

36. I feel tired most of the time.12345

37. With the help of my friends, I am confident that I can reach my goals in life.12345

38. There are lots of ways I can get around any problem.12345

39. God will guide me well for my future.12345

40. My parents find many ways to help me solve my problems.12345

41. God has made my life successful.12345

42. I am easily downed in an argument.12345

43. My friends usually help me find many ways to get out of problematic situations.12345

44. I can think of many ways to get the things in life that are important to me.12345

45. I have been successful in life so far because of the support of my parents.12345

46. There are many ways around a problem, if one trusts in God.12345

47. Ive been pretty successful in life.12345

48. My parents have helped me meet the goals that I have set for myself.12345

49. I worry about my health.12345

50. I have been able to meet my goals because my friends help.12345

51. Even when others get discouraged, I know I can find a way to solve a problem.12345

52. God has many different ways of letting me attain my goals.12345

53. I worry about the health of my family12345

54. My past experiences have prepared me well for my future.12345

55. I feel bad about having to disagree with someone.12345

56. My parents work with me in pursuing my goals.12345

57. When I am discouraged, I know my friends will think of ways to help me solve my problems.12345

58. If it is Gods will, I will meet the goals that I set for myself.12345

59. I work with my friends to attain the important goals in my life.12345

60. God always finds ways to help resolve my problems.12345

61. I usually find myself worrying about something.12345

62. My friends often find lots of ways to help me solve my problems.12345

63. My parents usually help in different ways me when I get into problematic situations.12345

64. I meet the goals that I set for myself. 12345

AppendixComment by Melle: It is not clear which research problem is being addressed bu these research questions and how data from this interview will verify the results of the quantiAppendix BInterview Questions:

[So at this moment, how are you in general?]

[What do you think is your priority when you entered law/graduate school?]

[And what were your expectations then?]

[Did that way of thinking change as time goes by?]

[How many subjects are you taking right now?]

[And how many major subjects and minor subjects are you taking]

[Do you have favorite subject or subjects?]

[And that would probably be?]

[Could you please tell me why _______?]

[What is your least favorite subject or subjects? And why?]

[What do you think is the most important element to be a good student? Why?]

[How do challenge yourself to learn new things?]

[Do you find it hard to study law?]

[Did you expect that studying in law/graduate school would be that hard?]

[Do you compare yourself with other students? On what aspects?][How would you describe your experiences of studying in law/graduate school at this point of time?]

[In your opinion, what do you think are the reasons why law/graduate students are having a hard time in studying? Any other reasons?]

[Since you mentioned _______, what applies to you? Why? If none, What do you do to make studying easier for you?]

[As of now, what do the up and down experiences in law/graduate school mean to you?]

[Why is it important for you to learn?]

[Do you believe that you can understand the ideas taught in your classes?][How do you think youll be able to use what you learn in your classes?[What preparation do you make to do very well in your classes?] [Do you think you are a good student? How did you say so][Why did you commit to yourself to be in law/graduate school even if they require more work? [Do you worry a lot?][How do you manage stress and problems?][What is your main goal in studying?][Do you easily give up? Why do you say so?][What do you when work gets hard?][Do you believe in yourself that you can succeed studying law? How did you say so?]