This presentation is part of a larger study aiming to analyse how university students’ achievement goal orientations (i.e., mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance) impact distinct academic outcomes: academic performance and academic engagement (on its three dimensions: cognitive, affective, and behavioural). Also, it investigated the potential mediating role of both cognitive and metacognitive self-regulation learning (SRL) strategies in these relationships. However, the focus of this particular presentation will be on the metacognitive SRL.

The 2x2 theoretical framework proposed by Elliot & McGregor (2001) emphasizes the idea that students' achievement goal orientation is an important factor in their academic success. There is a wealth of studies exploring how different types of goal orientation relate with students’ academic performance. However, mixed findings were revealed, suggesting more nuanced associations and calling for a deeper understanding of the underlying mechanisms explaining these links (Linnenbrink-Garcia & Wormington, 2019). Another meaningful indicator of students’ successful academic experience is their multi-dimensional academic engagement (Fredricks et al., 2004). Nonetheless, there are only few studies investigating its relationship with students’ achievement goal orientation (e.g., Zhong et al., 2023) and, more specifically, the way different goals might influence each distinct dimension of academic engagement. In this vein, the present study adds to the previous findings by investigating how each of the four types of goal orientation might differently relate with each of the four academic outcomes. Moreover, according to theoretical models of SRL (Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman, 2000), students are potentially active participants in the learning process with clear objectives and abilities to monitor, control, and regulate their learning. We argue that using metacognitive SRL might act as a mediator in the associations between students’ achievement goals and their academic performance and engagement. To our knowledge, no prior research addressed these specific mediations.

Grades might be an important outcome to many university students. However, there are also students who are less interested in grades and more interested in getting involved in various curricular or extra-curricular activities for enriching their experience and knowledge. Moreover, we think students’ academic engagement to be more closely linked to their individual factors (motivation and SRL) than academic performance reflected by grades. The latter are the sum of various external evaluation processes, therefore more influenced by external factors such as teachers’ grading criteria, different types of tasks required, the various degree of depth in processing and engagement involved by each of these tasks etc. Therefore, we decided to simultaneously consider academic performance and engagement as distinct outcome variables in our study, as we expected to find different patterns of their associations with the achievement goal orientation and use of metacognitive SRL.

Participants were 313 undergraduate students (M = 20.52, SD = 4.85, 70.3% female) enrolled in different faculties of one of the largest Romanian public universities. After agreeing with the informed consent, participants filled in the self-assessment measures in online format. Participation was voluntary, anonymity was guaranteed, and withdrawal was allowed at any time. Students were given course credits for their participation. Achievement goal orientation was measured using The Achievement Goal Questionnaire (AGQ; Elliot & McGregor, 2001). The instrument consists of four subscales: mastery-approach goals (MAP; α = .86), mastery-avoidance goals (MAV; α = .70), performance-approach goals (PAP; α = .93), and performance-avoidance goals (PAV; α = .76). Participants responded using a seven-point Likert scale (from 1 = not at all true of me, to 7 = very true for me). Metacognitive self-regulated learning was assessed using the specific 12-item subscale (α = .72) from the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ; Pintrich et al., 1991), adapted for the Romanian population (Cazan, 2017). Responses were given on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = not at all true to 7 = very true. Academic engagement was assessed using a set of 33 items proposed by Lam et al. (2014), grouped into three subscales: affective engagement (α = .84), behavioural engagement (α = .77), and cognitive engagement (α = .91). Ratings were made on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = total disagreement to 5 = total agreement. Academic performance was assessed by the self-reported overall average grade achieved in the previous semester of study. For the instruments not validated on Romanian population, the forward-backward method (Hambleton & Li, 2005) was used for the translation of the questionnaires from English into Romanian. Also, their factorial validity was verified using the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). In line with the joint fit criteria, the models fitted the data to a satisfactory degree (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

Academic performance was weakly correlated with academic engagement dimensions. The path analysis showed no significant direct or indirect associations (through metacognitive SRL) of any goal orientation and achievement. Further, MAP goals were positively associated with all dimensions of academic engagement and use of metacognitive SRL mediated all three relationships. In contrast, a higher PAP orientation was directly related only with higher behavioural academic engagement, whereas a higher PAV orientation was related with lower levels of engagement on all dimensions. The use of metacognitive SRL did not mediate any of these associations. Our findings have several educational implications regarding university students’ more successful academic trajectories. Educators should be more aware of the delineation between performance and academic engagement which, apart from not being strongly correlated, are differently associated with students’ motivational orientation and cognitive processing. Higher grades do not necessarily reflect a similar level of academic engagement and vice versa. Moreover, given that university education should be a relevant step in students’ self-knowledge, self-improvement, and career preparation, it should be less about grades and more about the intrinsic value of learning. Therefore, increasing students' academic engagement on all its dimensions should be a priority in the academic context. One way of doing this would be by increasing students’ self-regulated learning. However, they should be not only able, but also willing to actively engage in their learning experiences. Therefore, students’ endorsement of a higher MAP orientation is the main trigger for both SRL strategies use and academic engagement. Educators should strengthen this orientation by providing focused, constructive feedback, fostering students' intrinsic interest in the subject, and creating a classroom climate that highlights the formative aspects of learning while avoiding normative comparisons among students.

Cazan, A. M. (2017). Validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire on a Romanian sample. Revista de Psihologie, 63, 151-162. Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2× 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501-519. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.501 Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59-109. Hambleton, R. K., & Li, S. (2005). Translation and adaptation issues and methods for educational and psychological tests. In C. L. Frisby & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of multicultural school psychology (pp. 881-903). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 Lam, S. F., Jimerson, S., Wong, B. P., Kikas, E., Shin, H., Veiga, F. H., ... & Zollneritsch, J. (2014). Understanding and measuring student engagement in school: the results of an international study from 12 countries. School Psychology Quarterly, 29, 213-232. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/spq0000057 Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., & Wormington, S. V. (2019). An integrative perspective for studying motivation in relation to engagement and learning. In K. A. Renninger & S. E. Hidi (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of motivation and learning (pp. 739–758). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316823279.031 Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451-502). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50043-3 Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D.A.F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W.J. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). The Regents of the University of Michigan. Zhong, J., Wen, J., & Li, K. (2023). Do achievement goals differently orient students’ academic engagement through learning strategy and academic self-efficacy and vary by grade. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 16, 4779-4797. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S424593 Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50031-7