Next Article in Journal
The Behavioral Intention of Hospitals to Promote Sustainable Development of Green Healthcare from the Perspective of Organizational Stakeholders during the COVID-19 Epidemic: A Case Study of Hospitals in Taiwan
Previous Article in Journal
The Role of Entrepreneurial Thinking Mediated by Social Media on the Sustainability of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in Iran
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 5
10.3390/su15054519
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Effect of Goal Setting Based on China’s Standard of English Proficiency Scales on Reading Achievement

by
Aihua Zhu
1,
Samah Ali Mohsen Mofreh
1,* and
Sultan Salem
2
1
School of Educational Studies, University Sains Malaysia, 11800 Gelugor, Penang, Malaysia
2
Department of Economics, Birmingham Business School, College of Social Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, England, B15 2TT, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(5), 4519; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054519
Submission received: 7 January 2023 / Revised: 15 February 2023 / Accepted: 17 February 2023 / Published: 2 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Education and Approaches)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Language proficiency scales (LPS) are widely used in testing and assessment. Research on how to apply LPS in guiding learning, especially in terms of goal setting, is limited. Goals based on LPS can guide students’ learning, diagnose their problems, and provide a benchmark for achievement assessment. Mixed methods were used to investigate the effect of goal setting on reading achievement and students’ experience of the new approach. China’s Standard of English Proficiency Scales (CSE)-based goals were used to guide students’ reading. The quasi-experiment revealed that students’ test scores were significantly improved; the interview proved that students were generally positive about this way of learning. This study is significant in tapping the more profound value of LPS and has some enlightenment in language learning. The small sample size is one limitation of this study. Students’ achievements and engagement should be examined in future research.

1. Introduction

Language proficiency scales (hereafter referred to as LPS) are extensively used for assessment [1,2,3]. Evidence collected within the first few years after their publication is of prime importance and an essential decision-making basis for the further implementation of the scales [4]. It can tap the value of LPS in-depth and discover their positive role and impact on different stakeholders [5].
Exploring the application is a validation of the usefulness of LPS. The feedback from the stakeholders can back up the scales’ validity and provide evidence for revisions or adaptation [6]. For example, the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR), the most widely used language proficiency scale in the world [7], was densely studied by scholars, revealing its shortcomings in educational fields. The feedback brought about the new volume (CV) of the CEFR in 2020.
However, evidence from users should not be confined to testers and teachers; LPS should bridge teaching, learning, and assessment [8]. Therefore, evidence from students is equally important. Applying LPS in learning could be a deeper exploration of their function and further verification of their validity. It could fully play the role of LPS’ assessment, feedback, and guidance. Additionally, the feedback from students can provide evidence for their revision.
Students can also benefit from the application of LPS. One of the significant functions of LPS in learning is guiding students in setting goals [8], and the application of LPS as a learning goal can make students see where they are and where to go. Additionally, this could make learning an autonomous process and the descriptors can be used as goals and achievement assessment criteria. Students set goals according to their levels as described by the LPS and make adjustments when problems are identified. Thus, it helps set realistic and specific goals and adjust learning plans and strategies.
However, up to now, only one study has focused on using CSE as goal setting in listening [9].
Among all the language skills, reading is fundamental to other skills and is essential in helping students move beyond basic skills and achieve higher proficiency [10]. It is the fundamental and paramount element for successful learning [11], and the foundation for a full and active existence in all aspects of contemporary society, including economics, politics, community, and culture [12]. Without good reading proficiency, achieving higher proficiency levels for other skills is difficult. A competent reader is a lifelong learner with an understanding of knowledge, and knowing that encourages engagement and improves their critical and analytical thinking abilities [13].
Reading calls for self-regulated learners [14,15,16]. However, most English teaching in Chinese colleges still adopts a teacher-centered approach, in which students learn vocabulary and grammar under the direction of teachers. Sentences are taught by translation or grammar analysis; texts are decomposed into linguistic knowledge, separating the relationship between language and meaning [17]. This method hinders students from self-regulated learning [18]. As a result, students are overly concerned about the meaning of new words and sentence structures, leading to cursory comprehension of the themes and ignoring content knowledge and Western culture [19]. Moreover, studies have found that many students spend their spare time on the internet for entertainment, shopping, watching TV, and playing computer games [20]. Another investigation in a key university in China indicated that 50% of the students read for less than 30 min daily [21].
One leading factor of students’poor engagement is their lack of goals. They are unaware of what to read and why they should read [22], which discourages engagement in emotion and behavior [23,24], thus affecting their reading performance., making them passive learners and less self-regulated [25]. Hence, students need guidance on what to read, how to read, and which goals they should attain. The critical point is to help them set goals, provide instant feedback for their improvement, and motivate them to engage more in learning. while the hierarchical goals and descriptions in the LPS can provide students with specific goals to follow and track their progress in learning. However, the application of a language proficiency scale as goal setting in reading is underexplored. To help students develop independent learning and become self-regulated, this study aims to apply CSE as an instrument to set goals in reading.

2. Literature Review

2.1. CSE

LPS are many, such as the Foreign Service Institute (FSI), American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), TESOL International Association, and CSE (China’s Standard of English Proficiency Scale). This study selected CSE as an instrument to set goals. It was officially published in 2018. After its disclosure, many researchers in China piloted practicing CSE in their teaching and assessment, and studies are fruitful in this field.
Research on CSE in the first two or three years after its publication involved the theoretical basis, principles, development frameworks, and methods. Currently, the literature mainly explores the application value of CSE in English teaching and assessment, especially assessment [26]. Some scholars explored the alignment of CSE with other frameworks or tests. For example, the alignment with the CEFR [27], CET-4 and 6 [28], and in-house tests [29]. Some scholars developed new assessment tools based on CSE. For example, Liu et al. (2021) developed adult business English proficiency scales and a learning outcomes certification system based on CSE [30]; Shi and Zheng (2021) developed a new intelligent automatic diagnosis system model to facilitate learning and it proved to be effective in learning outcomes [31].
These studies explored the role of assessment from testers’ and teachers’ perspectives; research focusing on its application from students’ perspectives is relatively limited.
Pan and Wu (2019) examined how learners used CSE writing scale as a tool for self-assessment and peer assessment in elementary and secondary schools. However, no empirical evidence was provided [32]. Empirical articles concerning the use of CSE by students were rare. Zhang and Wang (2022) examined how CSE writing scale as self-assessment played a scaffolding role in a tertiary school. The t-tests demonstrated the effectiveness of CSE in promoting writing ability and confidence [33]. Another study by He and Zhang [9] used CSE in listening as a self-assessment tool to generate feedback. Students attended a program to train their micro-skills of listening ability based on CSE, and then they used the descriptions in the scales to set individual learning goals. This method proved effective, and students hold a positive attitude towards the SMART goal setting.
These studies highlighted the feedback role of CSE in writing and listening skills. However, its role of guidance as goal setting was not prioritized. As the scales in CSE ascend, it can provide students with sustainable development goals. However, to our knowledge, no study has used CSE as guidance in goal setting for students’ reading.

2.2. Goal Setting and Learning

Goal-setting theory [34,35] was formulated within industrial/organizational psychology based on about 400 lab and field experiments. This theory highlights that specific, challenging goals lead to better performance than easy or vague, general goals. The adoption of adaptive goals is a critical antecedent of the desired performance.
Goals affect performance in different ways. First, they serve a directive function. They direct effort and guide effort and attention to goal-relevant tasks while ignoring non-relevant ones behaviorally and cognitively. Second, goals have an energizing process. They can boost physical effort, repetitive execution of easy cognitive tasks, evaluation of perceived effort, and physiological effort indicators. Third, goals affect perseverance. Challenging goals extend effort when people are permitted to choose how long they spend on an activity. Fourth, goals impact action indirectly through the arousal, discovery, and adoption of strategies and knowledge pertinent to assigned tasks [36].
Goals should be distinct, inspiring, and attainable [35]. The complexity of goals should be appropriate to the participant’s abilities and should also have a challenging element so that the goals can be both inspiring and attainable [37]. It is one of the most popular and essential theories of motivation and performance in psychology, such as organization [38].
Studies have proven that goal setting is helpful in language learning. Pham (2022) explored the impact of specific goal-based writing on EFL students’ writing abilities and beliefs. Results showed that each of the four writing components—task achievement, coherence and cohesion, lexical resource, and grammatical range and accuracy—witnessed considerable improvement, with coherence and cohesion showing the most progress. Regarding their attitude, findings unveiled that goal-based writing increased their learning motivation and autonomy and fostered a more encouraging learning environment [39].
Al-Murtadha (2019) included goal-setting and visualization exercises in a six-week English language course at a Yemeni high school. A program of possible selves’ trees was designed and incorporated into syllabi to foster students’ willingness to communicate. ANCOVA was run to indicate any significant difference between the control and experimental groups. Results showed that although the intervention was brief, it positively impacted the students’ communication skills and inspired their enthusiasm to learn [40].
Shih and Reynold (2018) explored the effect of goal-setting integrated reading strategy instruction in Taiwan for college students. The intervention group was asked to keep a goal-oriented checklist designed to help them set goals and assess the amount of effort devoted. Results indicated that this method could significantly affect students’ reading competence, self-efficacy, and motivation [41].
Similarly, Mikami (2020) explored the effects of a one-year reading program intervention in a Japanese university using a qualitative method. Each time they had a reading session, the students first established their reading objectives, indicating the number of words or the level of books they wanted to read from the text. Results proved that this goal-setting program effectively boosted students’ reading motivation. The extensive reading program was confined to classroom reading instead of extra-curriculum reading [42].
These studies unfolded a tendency to incorporate goal setting into the curriculum to improve language skills and the results of these language learning programs provide strong evidence for goal setting in L2 learning contexts. However, the ways of using the intervention differ. Pham used the IELTS rubric as goals in writing; Al-Murtadha used communicative activities as goals.
Although Mikami and Shi explored goal setting in reading, the word count or book levels (Mikami) and scores and a list of checklists of reading strategies (Shi and Reynold) were set as reading goals. In these studies, rubrics, checklists, or performance activities provide a horizontal benchmark for goal setting, and books of different levels denote ascending levels of reading proficiency. None of these studies combine the vertical scales and horizontal performance descriptions as complex goals in learning.
A nexus of these two-dimensional goals are LPS, which could provide sustainable goals and a reflective description of the achievement of current progress. However, very few studies have investigated the application of LPS-based goal programs on L2 reading achievement. Therefore, this study seeks to practice a CSE-based goal reading program in China. To test the program’s effectiveness and gain a deeper understanding of how goal setting affects L2 students’ reading achievement, both quantitative and qualitative data were collected. The current research aims to answer the following two questions:
  • Could CSE-based learning goal setting affect students’ reading achievement?
  • What is students’ experience with this way of learning?

3. Methods

3.1. Participant

The current CSE-based goal-setting reading program was conducted at a private college in China. It was framed as an English reading class because this course is compulsory for students. According to the central limit theorem, sample sizes equal to or greater than 30 are often deemed sufficient [43]. In this study, 83 students from two natural classes were selected (41 students in the experiment and 42 in the control groups). Ages were between 18 and 19 years old. The experiment group (7 males, 34 females) were business management majors; the control group (5 males, 37 females) were accounting majors. All the participants had studied English for nine years and had never been taught to use CSE for goal setting before. In general, all participants’ L1 backgrounds, cultures, and prior learning experiences were homogenous.

3.2. Instruments

Two instruments were used to collect data in this research. A 51-item English reading test for first-year college students was used to collect data. This test was an in-house test developed for intermediate-level students and has been used in this college for many years. The statistics released by the teaching administrators in the college indicated that reliabilities were in the high 0.79 range.
Another instrument was interview questions adapted from Merriam (1998) [44]. Question topics included how students choose CSE goals in their reading, in what way CSE-based goals help them to learn, and what positive (or negative) things they experienced with goal setting. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed.

3.3. Intervention

The intervention of CSE-goal-based learning was implemented for the first semester of 2021–2022 with the support of school administration and English teachers.
During the experiment, group 1 was guided to use CSE as a benchmark for goal setting in learning. Group 2 used the traditional method of learning. The textbooks used in the classroom were the same. The participants were taught by two teachers. One English teacher has been teaching college English for 15 years, and the other teacher has 16 years of experience teaching in the same context. Students in group 1 received two 90-min reading lessons, in which 20 min were spent on goal-setting-related activities. Group 2 received two regular reading classes.
During the program, as shown in Table 1, students in group 1 underwent five stages of learning.
Firstly, they assessed their proficiency levels and wrote out their proficiency scales. Then, they diagnosed their reading problems and wrote out their difficulties. After the diagnosis, students wrote their expected goals according to the descriptors of the CS. Next, plans were made for achieving those goals. Lastly, students reflected on their progress by writing down their improvements and what was to be improved in their diary, handwritten or word-processed. This step helps students reflect on their learning goals and engagement and adjust where necessary.

3.4. Data Collection Procedure

This research was conducted in 14 sessions over 14 weeks, each week per session in English reading classes. Participants were informed that their participation was voluntary and their information would be kept private.
Quantitative. To answer question 1, a quasi-experiment was used. Non-equivalent groups’ pre- and post-intervention tests were conducted at the beginning and end of the semester (week 1 and week 15). The test scores from both groups were collected to be analyzed by the researchers.
Qualitative. To answer question 2, interviews were conducted. Ten students from group 1 were selected voluntarily for the unproportionate gender; seven girls and three boys were selected. Interviews lasted 15–20 min in their native language, depending on students’ responses.
The data collecting process and data to be collected were asseen in Figure 1:

3.5. Data Analysis

SPSS software was used to analyze data collected from the experiment. First, the normality test was used to determine whether the samples were normally distributed before the t-test; then, the means of scores were calculated. Finally, an independent samples t-test and a paired sample t-test were used to check if there were significant differences between pre-tests and post-tests between these two groups.
The qualitative data of the interview were transcribed and translated from Chinese into English.

4. Results

4.1. Quantitative Findings

A normality test was conducted to examine whether the sample data came from a normally distributed population. Since the sample size was small, a Shapiro–Wilk test was performed.
As seen in Table 2, the p-value (p = 0.06 in group 1 and =0.008 in group 2) is greater than 0.05 and did not show evidence of non-normality. Hence, the sample data were drawn from a normally distributed population.
The independent sample t-test results as seen in Table 3 show that the mean in group 1 is 76.11 (SD = 3.869), and 75.18 (SD = 6.427) in group 2; the p-value is 0.399. These statistics demonstrate that there was no statistically significant difference in reading proficiency between the two groups before the study started. However, the difference between the groups following intervention favored the experiment group. A statistically significant difference was discovered (M = 83.12, SD = 6.300, p = 0.000) in the experiment group. Or, to put it another way, following the experiment, group 1 significantly outperformed the conventional group 2 on the reading proficiency exam.
A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the impact of CSE-based goal setting on students’ scores. The results in Table 4 show a significant increase in testing scores from the pre-test (M = 76.11, SD = 3.859) to post-test (M = 83.12, SD = 6.300, t = −10.710, p < 0.005) in the experimental group.

4.2. Qualitative Findings

Qualitative exploration helps to uncover the ‘black box’ contents of learners’ development and experiences [38]. Findings from the interview demonstrated how the application of CSE leads to students’ academic achievement. In the following paragraphs, the selection of CSE-based goals, the function of CSE goals, and students’ learning experiences were reported.
How do students choose CSE goals in their reading?
Generally, students read all the descriptors in the scale and conducted a self-assessment first to decide their proficiency levels. Then, they set a higher level as their goal for the whole semester. The advantage of CSE-based goal setting is its individualization of goals. As students presented:
ST01: “This kind of goal is challenging but attainable; we are clearer about where to go and how to do it. And, we are not under huge pressure, for the goals are based on the individual situation.”
ST02: I set easy goals (level 4 in CSE) compared with others (level 5–6), for I am a slow learner.
In what way do students think CSE-based goals are helpful?
Overall, students considered CSE-based goal setting helped them learn differently. All of them agreed that this way of learning helped enhance their reading ability. The illustration from students below highlighted the function of CSE-based goals.
ST01: “CSE goals help us see what makes good reading proficiency; it changed our view of reading. In foreign language learning, we used to focus on words and sentences. However, CSE scales teach us more about higher-order thinking and reading in-depth”.
ST02: “CSE goals help guide us in setting achievable goals.”
ST03: “CSE goals made us more focused on reading instead of reading randomly. We know what to expect from a reading.”
ST04: “CSE goals help me select books and reading material.”
ST05: “CSE goal setting taught me the way of learning and how to become a life-long reader.”
ST06: “This way of learning affected my effort invested in learning. I spend more time reading than before.”
ST07: “If the goal were randomly selected, it would be difficult to achieve for you don’t care; you still do not know what you can do with English.”
ST08: “This way of learning helps me discover my weak points; when I used the descriptors to assess my reading proficiency, I discovered my problem and changed my reading habits.”
ST09: “It’s the first time I know the reading strategy is so important.”
ST10: “I consciously used the criterion in reading and benefited greatly.”
In general, the functions of CSE-based goals fell into three key themes: (1) Guidance in learning. CSE tells them where to go and what makes good reading proficiency. (2) Foster self-regulated and independent learning. CSE-based goals help them to be self-regulated and more concentrated in reading, and they engage more in reading. (3) Benchmarks of self-assessment-based goals are also essential references of feedback based on which students can diagnose their problems and adjust their plans and learning strategies.
What positive or negative things did you experience with CSE-based goal setting?
In general, students’ experience of this approach to learning is positive. Compared with other ways of goal setting, CSE-based goal setting is specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and time-bound.
ST01: “books or online reading material developed according to different scales, like the OXFORD reading tree, will be better.”
ST05: “CSE-based goals are ascending; we know what to do when one level of goals is achieved. We did set goals before; however, when the goals were attained, we had to think hard to set new goals. The CSE-based goals can exempt us from such troubles. We use a higher level as the goal in the next stage”.
ST06: “We can use the description in each subscale of reading proficiency to do self-assessment and check how we achieved. Unlike goals of numbers of stories or books, CSE-based goals make reading more qualified.”
ST07: “CSE-based goals enable me to read faster; I do not look for every new word in a dictionary like I did English reading before.”
ST10: “At first, I felt distressed about using CSE goals, for there are so many items that we are unfamiliar with, and I must remember and check my reading. Later, I found it is good, and I never expected reading could be assessed in specified, detailed ways.”
Based on the interview, it can be drawn that CSE-based goals are specific; with the ascending levels, students can use the descriptions as goals directly and adjust their goals if they find them challenging to achieve. CSE-based goals are measurable; students can use them as benchmarks to assess their achievement. Students also reported a sense of fulfillment and pride when they reached the goals on a higher scale.
There are also some negative comments. ST01 suggested that if books were aligned with specific CSE scales, they would learn more efficiently as the books or reading material they selected were randomly chosen, and their textbooks are not aligned with CSE.
This suggestion is essential for curriculum and course developers. Some students said that it was their first time getting to know CSE, that they needed help understanding some jargon in the description, and explanations from teachers were difficult to follow, such as self-regulating and monitoring.

5. Discussion

The results of this study revealed that CSE-based goal setting is effective in improving reading ability, and students hold positive perceptions about the usefulness of applying CSE-based goals to enhance their learning. With the help of CSE scales, students are more goal-oriented. It serves a multifaceted role in the learning content and can be an effective tool for students to see where they have come from, where they are now, and where to go [45]. Three major factors contributed to the results.
First and foremost, applying CSE in learning can help students set specific achievable goals. Goal setting and performance are closely connected. Setting goals was crucial for boosting L2 learning motivation, directly affecting their learning strategies, interaction mode, and learning input [46]. It influences task performance by mobilizing energy, concentrating attention and action, and extending persistence [47,48]. Compared to no goals, simple goals, or vague “do your best” goals, challenging and specified goals lead to better performance levels; feedback is crucial for good performance. The descriptors in each scale provide specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and time-bounded (SMART) goals in different stages, and attaining goals in minor steps enhances students’ sense of instrumentality, informing students what to expect from learning and what makes good proficiency. Students who found learning applicable and rewardable would show more motivated behavior and perform better learning results, demonstrating longer persistence and more frequent study behavior [49]. They will be less motivated if they do not believe their efforts will be worthwhile or valuable [36].
In addition to assistance in SMART goal setting, the descriptors in CSE can provide students with a benchmark of assessment and the feedback based on assessment serves as a mediator of learning. Learners reflect on their strengths and areas needing improvement [50], thus, helping students adjust goals and learning strategies [35]. This could lead to more engagement in emotion and behavior.
Third, goal setting can stimulate students’ enthusiasm for learning and help them choose efficient learning strategies to achieve their learning objectives [36]. The qualitative findings revealed that students held positive attitudes toward this approach to learning. Additionally, their achievement reinforces their sense of self-satisfaction, which could ensure more cognitive and behavioral engagement in learning. Although students’ task engagement levels may vary depending on their goals for participating in achievement activities [51], it would improve learning outcomes in the long term.
In general, using LPS in learning could help students set realistic objectives, understand their learning dynamics, receive feedback on their performance on tests, and modify their learning strategies, leading to better learning outcomes [52]. The distinctive and detailed “can do” descriptions and ascending scales help students set SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and time-bound) learning goals in stages [53]. The goals set by students based on scales are self-referenced and attainable, and step-by-step minor ones. Miller and Brickman [54] argued that personal future goals did not lead to the progression of a system of proximal goals. Instead, creating a series of subgoals inspired by future goals could make students more self-regulated and engaged in tasks. The clarity and elaboration of subgoals could assist learners in identifying which of the numerous options available to them in the present subgoals were instrumental to achieving future goals.
The minor inter-levels are attainable in the short term, thus building students’ sense of achievement and generating more engagement in future learning. Therefore, the ascending scales and elaborated description of abilities in LPS serve as a helpful instrument for future learning, dividing the general goals into subgoals that students can still adjust according to their situations, making the general goals more achievable. The achieved subgoals are perceived and can build students’ incentive value which supports engagement. Hence, LPS could help students transmit the future goal to the current subjective tasks and achievable goals, ensuing self-regulation and meaningful strategy use, which in turn impact learning outcomes.
The descriptors of LPS can be presented as checklists to facilitate self-assessment, against which students can compare and reflect on their performance [55]. Assessing learning-related outputs could make students more meta-cognitively engaged. The descriptors as goals and assessing criteria allow students to pinpoint their academic strengths and shortcomings and efficiently utilize their time and resources (self-regulation) to create adaptive learning strategies. Besides, it can assist learners in determining whether the learning process should continue or if a change is required [56,57]. These processes are essential to improve learning, make learning more meaningful to students, and contribute to self-automated and lifelong learners [58].
Based on these considerations, language proficiency in learning could help students become goal oriented. For goals direct where to go, benchmarks provide achievement standards in each step, and strategies guide learners on how to move forward. Additionally, it helps students build a sense of achievement by setting SMART goals, which in turn may improve engagement.

6. Conclusions

The potential functionality makes CSE a plausible instrument to guide students’ learning and promote learning engagement and outcomes theoretically. However, little experimental research has been carried out on practicing language proficiency scales as a goal-setting learning approach in language learning. This study aimed to close this gap in EFL reading by examining the effect of CSE-goal-oriented learning on reading achievements. A quasi-experiment was carried out on 83 college students from business management and accounting to test the impact of this intervention on reading achievement. Ten students were selected for an interview to explore their experience of learning based on CSE goal setting.
Findings from this study reveal that students are better suited to achieve higher learning outcomes, as the guidance of CSE can equip students with specific goals, providing a tower light for them. CSE can offer students a tool to evaluate their achievement and adjust learning strategies [8]. Moreover, the levels of CSE can convey the concept that ability is not static and can be gradually improved through effort [59]. The descriptors enable learners to see their ability levels in a particular stage, diagnose their learning problems, and determine the goals and levels to be achieved in the next stage. Students become more engaged when they feel the goal is attainable and vital to them [51]. When they attain the goals, their sense of accomplishment and fulfillment will, in turn, strengthen their engagement, making a virtuous turn.
In general, goal setting based on CSE helps learners be aware of their sustainable aims of reading and be more self-regulated and independent in order to be life-long learners.

7. Limitations

This study was intended to test the impact of goal setting based on CSE on college English reading achievement in China. One of the limitations is the small sample size in this case study. Therefore, generalization should be taken with caution. Another constraint is the use of testing scores as an indicator of learning outcomes. When an intervention was applied, students’ beliefs and affection might change.Bloom used cognitive, psychomotor, and affective dimensions to articulate educational learning outcomes. Other dimensions of learning outcomes should be examined. In addition, as a significant predictor of learning outcomes, students’ engagement is to be tested to explain how the application of CSE-based goals affects learning outcomes. The forthcoming studies could flesh out the trends discussed here and ascertain whether they would apply to other language skills and proficiency scales.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft, A.Z.; Writing & editing, S.A.M.M.; Writing—review & editing, S.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Fleckenstein, J.; Keller, S.; Kruger, M.; Tannenbaum, R.; Koller, O. Linking TOEFL IBT (R) Writing Rubrics to CEFR Levels: Cut Scores and Validity Evidence from a Standard Setting Study. Assess. Writ. 2020, 43, 33–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Green, A. Linking Tests of English for Academic Purposes to the CEFR: The Score User’s Perspective. Lang. Assess. Q. 2018, 15, 59–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hidri, S. Linking the International English Language Competency Assessment Suite of Examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference. Lang. Test. Asia 2021, 11, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zhu, Z. A Validation Framework for the National English Proficiency Scale of China. China Exam. 2016, 298, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Jin, Y.; Zou, S. The Alignment between Curriculum Standards and Language Proficiency Standards. Mod. Foreign Lang. 2022, 45, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  6. Jin, Y.; Jie, W. The application and impact of language proficiency scales: A case of the CSE Speaking Scale. Foreign Lang. World 2020, 198, 52–60. [Google Scholar]
  7. Byram, M. Politics, Origins and Futures of the CEFR. Lang. Learn. J. 2020, 50, 586–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Liu, J. China’s Standards of English and English Learning. Foreign Lang. China 2017, 14, 4–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. He, L.; Zhang, J. The application of the China’s Standards of English Language Ability in remedial instruction and learning. Foreign Lang. Test. Teach. 2021, 43, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  10. Cummins, J. Bics and Calp. In Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning; Routledge: London, UK, 2000; pp. 76–79. [Google Scholar]
  11. Gutierrez de Blume, A.P.; Soto, C.; Ramírez Carmona, C.; Rodriguez, F.; Pino Castillo, P. Reading Competence and Its Impact on Writing: An Approach towards Mental Representation in Literacy Tasks. J. Res. Read. 2021, 44, 617–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Amiama-Espaillat, C.; Mayor-Ruiz, C. Digital Reading and Reading Competence—The Influence in the Z Generation from the Dominican Republic. Comunicar 2017, 25, 105–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Alexander, P.A.; Reading, T.D.; Laboratory, L.R. Reading into the Future: Competence for the 21st Century. Educ. Psychol. 2012, 47, 259–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. SHOLEH, A. Self-Regulated Learners in Voluntary Reading: The Effects and Implications on EFL Reading Classes. J. Educ. Gift. Young Sci. 2019, 7, 867–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Qi, X. Effects of Self-Regulated Learning on Student’s Reading Literacy: Evidence From Shanghai. Front. Psychol. 2021, 11, 555849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Chu, L.; Li, P.-H.; Yu, M.-N. The Longitudinal Effect of Children’s Self-Regulated Learning on Reading Habits and Well-Being. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2020, 104, 101673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Qi, D.; Rajab, A.; Haladin, N.B. From Intensive Reading Teaching to Outcome-Based Teaching: An Empirical Study on English Reading in China. Int. J. Electr. Eng. Educ. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Matsuyama, Y.; Nakaya, M.; Okazaki, H.; Lebowitz, A.J.; Leppink, J.; van der Vleuten, C. Does Changing from a Teacher-Centered to a Learner-Centered Context Promote Self-Regulated Learning: A Qualitative Study in a Japanese Undergraduate Setting. BMC Med. Educ. 2019, 19, 152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Cao, H. A study on the practice of cultivating the English Reading Ability of Business English Students Based on the Flipped Classroom Model. J. Heilongjiang Inst. Teach. Dev. 2020, 39, 132–134. [Google Scholar]
  20. Zhou, J. Extracurricular Reading of Business English Majors in South China University of Technology: A Survey-Based Comparative Analysis. ARJASS 2022, 17, 44–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zhou, J.; Huang, Y. An Investigation and Analysis on Current Situation of Extracurricular Reading for Business English Majors—Based on Questionnaire Survey in South China University of Technology. J. Chengdu Univ. Tradit. Chin. Med. Educ. Sci. 2018, 20, 58–61. [Google Scholar]
  22. Chen, N. Dilemma and countermeasures of extracurricular reading for business English majors in local colleges and universities—A Case Study of Pingdingshan University. Mod. Bus. Technol. 2022, 43, 34–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Daumiller, M.; Zarrinabadi, N. “My Goal Is to Do the Best That I Can in This Class”: Relevance of Potential-Based Achievement Goals for Intrinsic Motivation and Course Performance. Int. J. Psychol. 2021, 56, 934–940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Grajcevci, A.; Shala, A. Exploring Achievement Goals Tendencies in Students: The Link Between Achievement Goals and Types of Motivation. J. Educ. Cult. Soc. 2021, 12, 265–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Guo, J.; He, W. Defect and Improvement of College Students’ Self-regulated Learning Quality in the Information Age. J. Huzhou Univ. 2020, 42, 40–46. [Google Scholar]
  26. Liu, J.; Yang, M. Exploring the Applicability of the CSE in Language Testing and Assessment. Foreign Lang. Test. Teach. 2021, 42, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  27. Peng, C.; Liu, J. The listening skill level alignment of the CSE with the CEFRA. Foreign Lang. Educ. 2021, 42, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Jin, Y.; Jie, W.; Wang, W. Exploring the alignment between the College English Test and language standards. Foreign Lang. World 2022, 24–32. [Google Scholar]
  29. Wang, H. Aligning school-based English proficiency tests with China’s Standards of English Language Ability: A case study. Foreign Lang. World 2020, 200, 72–79. [Google Scholar]
  30. Liu, Y.; Li, X.; Liu, Z. Development of Foreign Language Proficiency Standards for Adult Learners and Certification of Their Learning Outcomes Based on China s Standards of English Proficiency—A Project on the Development of English Proficiency Standards at the Open University of China. Technol. Enhanc. Foreign Lang. Educ. 2021, 199, 63–69+10. [Google Scholar]
  31. Shi, J.; Zheng, B. Practice of the Intelligent Autonomous Diagnostic Applications Based on CSE in English Teaching for Sports Major Students. J. Guangzhou Sport Univ. 2021, 41, 114–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Pan, M.; Wu, X. Applying CSE to English formative assessment in elementary and secondary schools: Cases of CSE Writing Scale applications. Foreign Lang. World 2019, 89–96. [Google Scholar]
  33. Zhang, W.; Wang, X. The Application of CSE in Students’ Self-Assessment in a College English Writing Course: From the Perspective of Dynamic Assessment Theory. Foreign Lang. China 2022, 19, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Locke, E.A.; Latham, G.P. A Theory of Goal Setting & Task Performance; Prentice-Hall, Inc.: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  35. Locke, E.A.; Latham, G.P. New Directions in Goal-Setting Theory. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2006, 15, 265–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Locke, E.A.; Latham, G.P. Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation—A 35-Year Odyssey. Am. Psychol. 2002, 57, 705–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Williams, M.; Mercer, S.; Ryan, S. Exploring Psychology in Language Learning and Teaching; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  38. Travers, C.J.; Morisano, D.; Locke, E.A. Self-Reflection, Growth Goals, and Academic Outcomes: A Qualitative Study. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2015, 85, 224–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Pham, Q.H.P. A Goal-Based Writing Program in the EFL Writing Context: Implementation and Results. Innov. Lang. Learn. Teach. 2022, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Al-Murtadha, M. Enhancing EFL Learners’ Willingness to Communicate with Visualization and Goal-Setting Activities. TESOL Q. 2019, 53, 133–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Shih, Y.-C.; Reynolds, B.L. The Effects of Integrating Goal Setting and Reading Strategy Instruction on English Reading Proficiency and Learning Motivation: A Quasi-Experimental Study. Appl. Linguist. Rev. 2018, 9, 35–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mikami, Y. Goal Setting and Learners’ Motivation for Extensive Reading: Forming a Virtuous Cycle. Read. Foreign Lang. 2020, 32, 28–48. [Google Scholar]
  43. Central Limit Theorem (CLT): Definition and Key Characteristics. Investopedia. Available online: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/central_limit_theorem.asp (accessed on 3 December 2022).
  44. Merriam, S.B. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. Revised and Expanded from Case Study Research in Education; Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  45. Halonen, J.S.; Bosack, T.; Clay, S.; McCarthy, M.; Dunn, D.S.; Hill, G.I.; McEntarffer, R.; Mehrotra, C.; Nesmith, R.; Weaver, K.A.; et al. A Rubric for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing Scientific Inquiry in Psychology. Teach. Psychol. 2003, 30, 196–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Oxford, R.; Shearin, J. Language Learning Motivation: Expanding the Theoretical Framework. Mod. Lang. J. 1994, 78, 12–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Locke, E.A. Latham versus Komaki: A Tale of Two Paradigms. J. Appl. Psychol. 1980, 65, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Locke, E.A.; Latham, G.P. The Development of Goal Setting Theory: A Half Century Retrospective. Motiv. Sci. 2019, 5, 93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Simons, J.; Vansteenkiste, M.; Lens, W.; Lacante, M. Placing Motivation, and Future Time Perspective Theory in a Temporal Perspective. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2004, 16, 121–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Andrade, H.G. Using Rubrics to Promote Thinking and Learning. Educ. Leadersh. 2000, 57, 13–18. [Google Scholar]
  51. Greene, B.A.; Miller, R.B.; Crowson, H.M.; Duke, B.L.; Akey, K.L. Predicting High School Students’ Cognitive Engagement and Achievement: Contributions of Classroom Perceptions and Motivation. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2004, 29, 462–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wu, Z. Standards-Based Achievement Assessments: Linking China’s Standards of English to Content Standards. China Exam. 2019, 325, 36–44. [Google Scholar]
  53. Moeller, A.J.; Theiler, J.M.; Wu, C. Goal Setting and Student Achievement: A Longitudinal Study. Mod. Lang. J. 2012, 96, 153–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Miller, R.B.; Brickman, S.J. A Model of Future-Oriented Motivation and Self-Regulation. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2004, 16, 9–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Harsch, C.; Malone, M.E. Language Proficiency Frameworks and Scales. In The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Language Testing; Routledge: New York, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  56. Yan, Z.; Brown, G.T. A Cyclical Self-Assessment Process: Towards a Model of How Students Engage in Self-Assessment. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2017, 42, 1247–1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Muis, K.R. The Role of Epistemic Beliefs in Self-Regulated Learning. Educ. Psychol. 2007, 42, 173–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Lehtola, T. Self-Assessment: A Motivating Tool for Achieving Better Language Skills; University of Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä, Finland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  59. Dweck, C.S. Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development; Psychology Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 15 04519 g001 550
Figure 1. Data collection process.
Figure 1. Data collection process.
Sustainability 15 04519 g001
Table
Table 1. CSE-based goal setting in reading.
Table 1. CSE-based goal setting in reading.
My Current LevelReading ProblemsExpected GoalsMy PlanMy Reflection
Self-assessment based on the CSE scaleDiagnosis (deficiency in knowledge, skills, or strategy?)Goals to be attainedHow to achieve the goalWrite down achievements in diaries, and make goal adjustments where necessary.
Table
Table 2. Tests of normality.
Table 2. Tests of normality.
ScoresGroupShapiro–Wilk
StatisticdfSig.
Score 110.918410.006
Score 220.922410.007
Table
Table 3. Group differences in reading—independent samples test.
Table 3. Group differences in reading—independent samples test.
GroupNMeanStd. DeviationStd. Error Meantp
Pre-test score1 (experiment)4176.113.8590.6030.8480.399
2 (conventional)4275.186.4271.085
Post-test score1 (experiment)4183.126.3000.9845.0050.000
2 (conventional)4275.717.1581.104
Table
Table 4. Paired sample statistics.
Table 4. Paired sample statistics.
NMeanStd. DeviationStd. Error Meantp
Pair 1Pre-test4176.113.8590.603−10.7100.000
Post-test4183.126.3000.984
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhu, A.; Mofreh, S.A.M.; Salem, S. The Effect of Goal Setting Based on China’s Standard of English Proficiency Scales on Reading Achievement. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4519. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054519

AMA Style

Zhu A, Mofreh SAM, Salem S. The Effect of Goal Setting Based on China’s Standard of English Proficiency Scales on Reading Achievement. Sustainability. 2023; 15(5):4519. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054519

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhu, Aihua, Samah Ali Mohsen Mofreh, and Sultan Salem. 2023. "The Effect of Goal Setting Based on China’s Standard of English Proficiency Scales on Reading Achievement" Sustainability 15, no. 5: 4519. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054519

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop