The art of goal setting

Ken Beatty
A business woman looking and pointing at a wall full of post it notes

Reading time: 4 minutes

Dr. Ken Beatty defines goals and explains why we should think of them as doors to open rather than fixed targets.

Goals as doors

My eldest son, Nathan, failed to achieve the biggest goal of his life: becoming a garbage truck driver. It's hardly surprising - he was only four years old at the time. His ambition likely dissolved once he realized that garbage trucks sometimes smell bad. Before then, he'd mostly observed them from the safety of our apartment window.

As is the case with most people, his goals have changed. Completing his degree in international economics, hoping to work in technology startups until he forms one himself. Or maybe not. Goals evolve.

Researchers and teachers have known for decades that goals are vitally important motivations in general education and language learning. After examining 800+ studies, Hattie (2009) identified goals as among the most powerful instructional interventions for improving student success.

The basic message is that goals are good. However, other researchers (Rowe, Mazzotti, Ingram, & Lee, 2017) suggest that teachers have trouble embedding them in lessons.

Part of the problem might be in finding a way to visualize goals. Goals are often pictured as archery targets or soccer nets, but a more useful metaphor is a door. When we have a goal, we may not fully understand it until we enter into the goal, as if it were a room, inevitably finding choices of other doors leading off in other directions.

Understanding where goals come from

Before we start to set goals for our students, it's important that we have a degree of self-awareness and understand where our own attitudes and ideas come from.

As teachers, we tend to resemble the people who inspired us most. Our own teachers, good and bad, shape our attitudes toward teaching and language-learning goals.

Who was your favorite teacher? In my case, my all-time favorite teacher was Mr. Chiga, who, in 1970, taught me Grade 7 and was about to retire. He was a Renaissance man. Short and tough with fingers like cigars, he would occasionally lead us from the playground up two flights of stairs to our classroom… walking on his hands. Yet these same hands were delicate enough for his hobby of making violins, a fact I only learned later, because, unlike me, Mr. Chiga was modest.

Mr. Chiga loved literature and taught us Greek and Roman history with a sense of joy that has never left me. One would think that his educational goals would be a perfect foundation for my own. Perhaps. But a quick check on the timeline shows that if he was about to retire in 1970, he was probably born in 1905 and likely graduated from teachers' college around 1925.

It's ironic that although my Ph.D. is in the area of computer-assisted language learning, my favorite teacher began his career two years before the invention of the television, and, moreover, all his teachers would have been born in the 1800s.

It's a long story to make a short point: as teachers, we need to reflect on where our teaching and learning goals come from and question them. We also need to avoid those things that our least favorite teachers did.

Setting goals

Are the goals we set for our students sometimes too low? Undoubtedly.

As a Grade 11 student, my only ambition in life was to take a two-year photo technician course. My counselor discouraged me, saying I wasn't academic enough and suggested a job at the wood mill instead. In a sense, he closed a door.

I switched schools where another favorite teacher, Mr. Ferguson, patiently kept me after school for six weeks, teaching me how to write essays and, by extension, how to think. He dangled the motivation of a university education before me and set me on my path there. And that was a door opened.

So what's the lesson here? More than just knowing where goals come from, we also need to be aware of the power of goal setting and how it can drastically alter a particular student's life trajectory.

Closing doors, rather than opening them, often stunts growth and limits possibilities. It can even lead to students forming life-long assumptions about themselves that just aren't true - "I'm no good at math," "I'm not cut out for independent travel", etc. Opening doors, however, can bring our students entirely new perspectives on life.

Expecting goals to change

When it comes to changing goals, there are a number of factors to take into account, including forming a better sense of self. We might start off with many ambitions but we measure ourselves against the realities of our skill sets and modify our goals.

For example, a student who experiences a lot of success in learning English is more likely to consider careers that require it. Teachers, too, are more likely to offer direction: "You write very well. Have you considered a career in journalism?"

Today, countless jobs require a second language or provide better promotion opportunities for students who speak two or more languages. Yet, students oriented toward employment opportunities may have difficulty understanding the long-term advantages of learning a second language if specific jobs are not on their radar.

This leads to two questions:

  • What goals should we help students set for themselves?
  • And how should teachers suggest them?

Many goals are based on the educational standards that govern our profession. The Global Scale of English (GSE), in particular, is helpful to both textbook writers and teachers in identifying language goals and provides teachers with detailed steps to achieve them.

But beyond such standards are those two magic ingredients that teachers share with language learners: joy and motivation.

Teachers spread joy in learning by example, making language learning engaging and pleasurable. Teachers also motivate students by helping them identify personal goals, giving them reasons why language proficiency is not just worthwhile in general but is perhaps one key to future success.

It might even lead to a job driving a garbage truck.

References

Hattie, J. A. (2009).Visible Learning: A Synthesis Of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating To Achievement.New York: Routledge

Rowe, D.A, Mazzotti, V.L., Ingram, A., & Lee, S. (2017). Effects of Goal-Setting Instruction on Academic Engagement for Students At Risk.Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals.40(1) 25–35.

More blogs from app

  • A young child sat at a desk in a classroom writing

    Grammar: how to tame the unruly beast

    By Simon Buckland

    “Grammar, which knows how to control even kings”- ѴDZè

    When you think of grammar, “rule” is probably the first word that pops into your mind. Certainly the traditional view of grammar is that it’s about the “rules of language”. Indeed, not so long ago, teaching a language meant just teaching grammatical rules, plus perhaps a few vocabulary lists. However, I’m going to suggest that there’s actually no such thing as a grammatical rule.

    To show you what I mean, let’s take the comparative of adjectives: “bigger”, “smaller”, “more useful”, “more interesting”, etc. We might start with a simple rule: for adjectives with one syllable, add -er, and for adjectives with two or more syllables, use more + adjective.

    But this doesn’t quite work: yes, we say “more useful”, but we also say “cleverer”, and “prettier”. OK then, suppose we modify the rule. Let’s also say that for two-syllable adjectives ending in -y or -er you add -er.

    Unfortunately, this doesn’t quite work either: we do say “cleverer”, but we also say “more sober” and “more proper”. And there are problems with some of the one-syllable adjectives too: we say “more real” and “more whole” rather than “realer” or “wholer”. If we modify the rule to fit these exceptions, it will be half a page long, and anyway, if we keep looking we’ll find yet more exceptions. This happens repeatedly in English grammar. Very often, rules seem so full of exceptions that they’re just not all that helpful.

    And there’s another big problem with the “rule approach”: it doesn’t tell you what the structure is actually used for, even with something as obvious as the comparative of adjectives. You might assume that it’s used for comparing things: “My house is smaller than Mary’s”; “John is more attractive than Stephen”. But look at this: “The harder you work, the more money you make.” Or this: “London is getting more and more crowded.” Both sentences use comparative adjectives, but they’re not directly comparing two things.

    What we’re actually looking at here is not a rule but several overlapping patterns, or paradigms to use the correct technical term:

    1. adjective + -er + than
    2. more + adjective + than
    3. parallel comparative adjectives: the + comparative adjective 1 … the + comparative adjective 2
    4. repeated comparative adjective: adjective + -er + and + adjective + -er/more and more + adjective

    This picture is more accurate, but it looks abstract and technical. It’s a long way from what we actually teach these days and the way we teach it, which tends to be organized around learning objectives and measurable outcomes, such as: “By the end of this lesson (or module) my students should be able to compare their own possessions with someone else’s possessions”. So we’re not teaching our students to memorize a rule or even to manipulate a pattern; we’re teaching them to actually do something in the real world. And, of course, we’re teaching it at a level appropriate for the student’s level.

    So, to come back to grammar, once we’ve established our overall lesson or module objective, here are some of the things we’re going to need to know.

    • What grammatical forms (patterns) can be used to express this objective?
    • Which ones are appropriate for the level of my students? Are there some that they should already know, or should I teach them in this lesson?
    • What do the forms look like in practice? What would be some good examples?

    Existing grammar textbooks generally don’t provide all this information; in particular, they’re very vague about level. Often they don’t even put grammar structures into specific CEFR levels but into a range, e.g. A1/A2 or A2/B1, and none fully integrates grammar with overall learning objectives.

    At app, we’ve set ourselves the goal of addressing these issues by developing a new type of grammar resource for English teachers and learners that:

    • Is based on the Global Scale of English with its precise gradation of developing learner proficiency
    • Is built on the Council of Europe language syllabuses, linking grammar to CEFR level and to language functions
    • Uses international teams of language experts to review the structures and assess their levels

    We include grammar in the GSE Teacher Toolkit, and you can use it to:

    • Search for grammar structures either by GSE or CEFR level
    • Search for grammar structures by keyword or grammatical category/part of speech
    • Find out at which level a given grammar structure should be taught
    • Find out which grammar structures support a given learning objective
    • Find out which learning objectives are related to a given grammar structure
    • Get examples for any given grammar structure
    • Get free teaching materials for many of the grammar structures

    Think of it as an open-access resource for anyone teaching English and designing a curriculum.