JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION, 1990, 9, 115-122
The Effect of Instructor-Set Goals
Upon Skill Acquisition and Retention
of a Selected Shooting Task
B. Ann Boyce
University of Virginia
This study investigated the effect of instructor-set performance goals on skill
acquisition and retention of a selected shooting task. Utilizing a modified twostage sampling technique, six classes (90 potential subjects) were assigned
to one of two conditions: with instructor-set performance goals or without
instructor-set performance goals. Subjects received a pretest trial, five skill
acquisition trials, and a retention trial on a selected shooting task (kneeling).
The results indicated that the performance-goal group was significantly more
effectivethan the non-performance-goal group. There was a significantdifference across trials. Further, there was a signifcant interaction effect, and when
follow-up tests were applied the results indicated that the group who received
the instructor-stated performance goals was significantly better than the nonperformance-goal group during Trials 2-5 and the retention trials. The findings
are related to how performance goals affect skill acquisition and retention.
Although many goal setting studies have addressed cognitive aspects of
performance, there have been relatively few field based studies in which motor
skill performance was the topic of investigation (Barnett, 1977; Edwards, 1988;
Hollingsworth, 1975; Locke & Latham, 1985; Weinberg, Bruya, Longino, &
Jackson, 1988). And while there is substantial evidence in the literature to indicate
that performance goals affect behavior, much of this evidence has been derived
through laboratory and industrial experiments in which subjects with experimenterset performance goals attained a higher level of performance than those subjects
who were instructed to "do your best" (Bryan & Locke, 1967; Locke & Bryan,
1966, 1967). Given this information, can the findings from a body of literature
derived in one setting (e.g., industrial and/or laboratory) be generalized to a sport
skill environment?
The results of a growing number of recent goal setting studies that utilized
sport skills tend not to support the research findings from laboratory and/or
B. Ann Boyce is with the Department of Human Services, Program of Health and
Physical Education, Memorial Gymnasium, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
22903-2495.
luaru]eaa e (e) :suoy$1pno3o w jo auo 01 pau8!sse aiaM sassel:, v s aqL -s)sfqns
~ u q o araM
d d o ~ uogmnpa
d
p!sdqd 3~seqayl y sassel:, a w q s arl)jo auo y
panoma pm snad 92 01 81 woy a8e ur % y % ms$uapms
~
@ s i a g~a u~ ! ~
(pouad
ssep a1-s e loj PO% e "%-a) uoyemp y poqs pm 3rjpds aq lsnm po8 ayl
$q
paupmap S ~ M
$I aweialg jo MaFnai ayl woy 'dpuoyppv 'ysq %uyooqs
p q q a s e jo uofinai pm uog!s!nb~e ~ [ ~io$om
l s uodn spo8 a 3 m o j 1 a d p q q s
-.1013wsq
jo $mjaayl q e g g s a ~ yw s e dpws
~ q jo asoctmd aw aiojazarlI,
~08or.ussoi%e jo uo!$ua$ai uo % w a spo%jo I m j a ayl paupmxa aAq sapnls
passalppe
pauor$uamaiojeayl jo auou ' ~ aasoq
j jo puy .uog!sp1b3~, e s 1010~1
aAey Ma3 e dpo 'pamojiad uaaq aAq sapms %ugaspo%d m a m
. s p q w s ou lo dsaa y l ! ~sdnoi8
m y salo3s i a q 8 ~
dpm1p8!s pa~appes p q w s a~mzuuopad11n31jp y l ! ~
sdnolg WV We3pul (£861) W93S Pm '(2861) W S Pm 'a1-S 'Wq '(6L61)
mf)'(6~61)V 3 Y S Pm 33aU-W '(qt7861 'et7861) SPnMPl3 Pm aa? 30 ~~FPuLT
ayl pm ' h p g r p po%03 pn8ai q ! p~n p u o 3 uaaq osp say q3nasai 'aiour
-1aqund 'uopmp u! uoqs osp $nq 313y3ads aq spo8 ppoqs Apo IOU ~ e ypl a ~ q s
(8867) s p n ~ p 'uoyppe
g
q .($saqmod op '.%-a) spoS paqpiaua8 01 pasoddo se
SF% a 3 ~ 0 ~ l a 1d ~ fBla]T[I3aj
d
s@o83 ~ 1 d s fBlW q3gM hrwrl) (8961)
s , a q q uo paseq seM p08 a ~ m m o j i a dt? %uysgqa]saJO at01 luarps aqL
'spo8 19s-iquaur~~adxa
p qO ~ M
asoyl snsJaA sp08 $as-j~as
peg O ~ M
sdno~%
u w
-aq a~ummopadq a 3 u a ~ a j pou s e azayl
~ ' ~ w s u o 3paupmas &p3133p PO%
UaqM leyl P F P u ! (6~61)la%!aMq3~Pm 33307 Pm (2861) 033Z1330 S~IPU!J
ayl 'laytmd '(9961) l a k pm
~ ' d q 'q3uaq jo q~leasa.~
ayl u! pauoddns osp
sew po8 ayl jo guyas ayl 01 pasoddo se po8 ayl $as O ~ M
uo s~seqdwaapsu
' ( 0 ~ 1'4 ,am!p 8 ayl jo 8 q a s pm ayl se ~wod~
se IOU s a %mas
~
po8 q
uogad!3wd w.qploqns jo m o m ayl,, wrl) WM O ~ M
'(9~61)
pm q q
dq papauodai aiaM s%ypurjh ~ i u o 3' l a ~ a -3rjpads
~ o ~ pm awudo~ddealaM
dayl j r spo%$as-la$uawpadxa01 iopadns axaM spo0 $as-jps$eylpa$e3pu! (8961)
p u a x pm 'mhrg ' a q 3 g dq pauuopad sapms jo dnoi8 e jo s%qpwjaqL
'(6L61)
7a3mqs pm U a m g jo 3.10~
ayl dq pauoddns seM 8qas-po8-uou Jarlo 8u!~as
-PO% ~mdpymd
io papaaqmal jo 13aja anypod ayl puy -pAaISO-ayl ~esdno~8
%pas-po8-uou pue %was-po%ayl uaawaq sa3uasajp $m3@p pap~a!d dpms
s y .hraym
~
u! $uama~a!q3euo sdno~%
pal-laq3eal ur 8upas po%jo Paga ayl
p a u y x a (6L61) ya3-S
pm UaUJeH 'dptlls
UI ' ( ~ ~ '6 W
1 o ~ s 8 ~ 0 ~
f ~ ~ 'uau.re@
6 1 sdno~z%mas-po8-uoupm % g a s - p 8uaawaq J u a q e lpqs y
sa3ua.1ajp 1m3y~%!suoup n p o ~ aAeq
d
luaunroipua moolssep e q '%q%%nf
%uog1smb3e paqmxa ~ e ysapms
l
8 q a s po8 OML
'qsq J O ~ O ~ I~T ~ 0 B1jo
-a~!snpuo:,
-qs! s$uaruuo+ua ~ [ g uods
s
u! % q a spo%30 w j a ayl %uypn%ala m a p ~ ~ a
ayl aiojaJarlT, ' ( s ~ T'6) '.%was po% a~g3agay 8-a
dq%ual% y ~ l o ~ y
suoyeZysa~u!lo . ' ' sluaurpadxa play panoauo:, UaM - - - sapms hro~eloqel
layl!a alaM uoddns %qaqsuomap[sapws] asoyl,, $1293 palws (8861) am68 pm
p~'d~@uoyppv'(9861 'uoq3q T 'pm1ief) 'adma ' % i a q y a'.~861
~
'uoq3ef
' % i a q q a '.xauq3$~$~
~
f ~ 3 6 1'uosq3ey ~g' 8 i a q q a ~'WH)s Z q a s wsnpu!
INSTRUCTOR-SET GOALS
117
group who received stated performance goals (one per class period) and (b) a
control group who were instructed to "do your best. " Thirty of the 45 students
in the three classes assigned to a condition were randomly selected to participate
in this study. Thus there were 30 subjects in each of the two conditions. This
modified sampling technique was recommended by Jager (1984) for use when
dealing with intact groups (e-g., classes). None of the subjects had previous
experience in the kneeling shooting position. There were 11women and 19 men in
the treatment group and 12 women and 18 men in the control group. In addition,
although the study was approved by the university's human subjects committee,
none of the subjects were informed that they were subjects for this study until
after the data had been collected, as the researcher was concerned about a possible Hawthorne effect.
All shooters were right-handed except for one shooter in each of the two
conditions. Two students in each of the two conditions wore lenses, which
corrected their vision to 20120. All shooters were tested for contralateral eyehand dominance, as this condition has been shown to impair shooting performance
(Daniels & Landers, 1981; Porac & Coren, 1976). Eye dominance testing did
not identify any shooters with this condition.
The rifles used were .22 caliber target small-bore weapons. The facility
was a 4-point, 5 0 4 indoor range. The targets utilized in this study were 11 bull
"conventional targets" (A-17) approved by the National Rifle Association (NRA).
Each bull on the target contained six concentric rings; the outermost ring scored
5 points if a bullet broke any portion of the ring. The next ring in scored 6 points,
and so on, until one arrived at the innermost ring, which counted 10 points. If
a shooter missed the entire bull, helshe scored 0 points. These scoring procedures were in accordance with the guidelines established by the NRA.
Treatment Condition
In the present study, five instructor-set goals imposed a performance standard
for the kneeling unit during each of the five skill acquisition trials. The five performance goals, one for each acquisition trial, were arranged in a progression with
lower (easier) goals in earlier trials and high (difficult) goals in later trials.
Important to this study was the issue of determining acceptable and appropriate goals of shooting achievement. Based on the NRA marksmanship requirements, standards ranged from 25 to 40 points out of a possible 50 points on
shooting achievement; these standards were selected for consideration (National
Rifle Association, 1987). In addition, the researcher reviewed the scores of 50
previous students over three riflery classes who were not participants in the present
study. This post hoc examination of past student scores was conducted to help
determine the appropriateness of the five performance goals for the present study.
It was determined that out of a possible 50 points, students in previous classes
averaged about (a) 25 points, Trial 1; @) 30 points, Trial 2; (c) 32 points, Trial
3; (d) 35 points, Trial 4; and (e) 38 points, Trial 5. It should be noted that the
three previous classes utilized in this post hoc investigation also had instructorset performance goals. Therefore, based on NRA standards, the post hoc review
of the scores of previous classes and the research that advocated high performance
goals the five instructor-set goals were set at (a) 25 points or better, Trial 1; (b) 30
points or better, Trial 2; (c) 35 points or better, Trial 3; (d) 40 points or better,
Trial 4; and (e) 40 points or better, Trial 5.
BOYCE
118
Procedure and Design
The instructor explained the performance goals at the beginning of each
class during the five skill acquisition trials. ~ a c hsubject was pretested on the
kneeling shooting task. Standardized instructions, safety precautions, and demonstrations of the kneeling position were given to each class prior to the prefest.
At the conclusion of the course, students in the control group were asked if they
had set their own goals during any of the trials. This question was posed because
research by Hollingsworth (1975) indicated that subjects with knowledge of results
may set their own goal independent of the researcher. However, the subjects'
answers to this question revealed that only five of them had set their own performance goals.
The data collection protocol consisted of seven trials: a pretest trial, five
skill acquisition trials, and a retention trial. During these trials, subjects in both
conditions fired a total of 35 rounds plus sighting shots (five rounds per trial plus
three sighting shots). The pretest and acquisition trials lasted 3 weeks, 2 days
per week. The retention trial was administered 7 days after the last acquisition
trial. The highest score possible on the target was 50 points (10 points per shot),
and all shots were fired from the kneeling position. After each shot, subjects were
given knowledge of results in terms of score and location (e.g., a score of 7 at
12 o'clock) by a peer with a telescope located behind the shooter.
Performance scores for all groups were recorded on the pretest, acquisition,
and retention trials. All instruction, practice, demonstration, feedback, and
weapons, with corresponding equipment, were held constant for both groups.
For example, each class received the same instructions, practice opportunity, and
demonstration as defined by a standardized lesson plan for each trial (class period).
Further, the instructor reminded subjects in both groups of concepts and movement patterns of the kneeling task except during the pretest and retention trials.
All subjects in both groups were encouraged to give their best effort on the shooting
task regardless of the condition applied. It should be noted that 50% of the grade
in the riflery classes was based on skill attainment for both groups. The grade
for the treatment and the control groups was determined by a skills test given
on the fifth acquisition trial (Day 5).
Results
To test the effects of the two treatments, a 2 x 7 (Treatments X Trials)
analysis of variance with repeated measures on trials was computed. A main effect
for treatment was significant, F(1,58) =27.18, p<.01, indicating that the treatment conditions appeared to have a different effect on shooting performance. The
mean of the performance-goal group (M=34.49) was higher than that of the nonperformance-goal group (M=28.83).
Further, a main effect for trials was significant, F(6,348) = 16.63, p<.01.
Differences among trial means were tested using Tukey's post hoc procedure which
indicated that the pretest was significantly different from retention and from Trials
1 through 5 at the .O1 level. Trial 1 was significantly different from retention
and Trial 5 at the .O1 level and from Trial 4 at the .05 level. Trial 3 was significantly different from retention and Trial 5 at the .05 level.
INSTRUCTOR-SET GOALS
119
There was a significant interaction of groups (treatment) and trials,
F(6,348)=2.44, p<.05. When group means were examined across trials, the
groups did not appear to follow the same skill acquisition and retention patterns
(see Figure 1 and Table 1). Simple effects were tested using a one-way analysis
of variance. There was a significant difference between groups for retention,
F(1,58)= 14.90,fi.001; Trial 5, F(1,58)= 19.24, p<.001; Trial 4, F(1,58)=
12.67,fi.OOl; Trial 3, F(1,58)=21.49,p<.001; and Trial 2, F(1,58)=21.17,
fi.001.
-A
A
"
1
"
/"-
*&:-
A
.
/
A
/
A l
~
A -
Treatment
Control
A 01
1
PRE
2
1
3
RET
5
4
TRIALS
Figure 1 - Mean performance (shooting scores 0-50 points) of two conditions across
seven trials.
Table 1
Mean Performance Scores Across Conditions
Trials
Groups
Treatment
Pretest
M
SD
M
3
2
1
SD
M
SD
M
5
4
SD
M
SD
M
Retention
SD
M
SD
24.86 11.16 31.20 7.65 35.66 6.21 35.76 7.26 37.36 6.81 38.73 3.76 37.93 5.37
C0ntr01 23.80 8.98 27.86 9.51 27.23 7.88 25.63 9.51 30.53 8.01 31.73 7.87 31.70 7.02
Note. Total score possible was 50 points.
BOYCE
120
Discussion
The present study investigated the effect of instructor-stated performance
goals upon motor skill acquisition and retention of a selected shooting task (kneeling). The class setting and the activity permitted experimental intervention of the
performance goals with other instructional events held constant. Analysis indicated
that the group who received the performance goals was superior to the "do your
best" group.
In addition, there was a significant effect for trials at the -01 level. After
an examination of the descriptive data (means and standard deviations), it was
ascertained that this difference could be attributed to a learning effect (see Table 1).
In many instances, as the trials progressed the performance scores increased across
both conditions.
From the results of the simple-effects test following the significant interaction of groups and trials, the significant differences occurred during Trials 2
through 5 and the retention trial. This finding suggests that instructor-stated
performance goals positively affects motor skill acquisition and retention. Further,
the skill acquisition pattern for the performance goal group was linear in nature
as opposed to an erratic acquisition pattern exhibited by the non-performancegoal group. The non-performance-goal group's scores were also more variable
in terms of SDs than the performance-goal group (see Table 1).
As previously mentioned, the control (non-performance-goal) group subjects
were asked if they had set their own goals during any of the seven trials. Only
five responded that they had set their own performance goals. Several students
indicated that they perceived themselves as incapable of setting performance goals
due to the novelty of the task. This brings out a salient point: If subjects perceive
a task as totally novel, then the possible impact of instructor-stated performance
goals gains even more importance.
In conclusion, support has been given for the use of instructor-statedperformance goals. Further, this study supports the importance of establishing performance goals that are specific, short in duration, and progressive (from easy to
hard) in nature. Courses in riflery are not commonly found in most physical education programs. However, many other sports activities contain a myriad of skills
whose performance could be enhanced by the establishment of measurable performance goals (e.g., tennis-number of legal serves achieved within a single game).
References
Bamett, M.L. (1977). Effects of two methods of goal setting on learning a gross motor
task. Research Quarterly, 48(1), 17-23.
Barnett, M.L., & Stanicek, J.A. (1979). Effects of goal setting on achievement in archery.
Research Quarterly, 50(3), 328-332.
Bryan, J.F., & Locke, R.A. (1967). Goal setting as a means of increasing motivation.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 274-277.
Chacko, T.I. (1982). An examination of the affective consequences of assigned and self
set goals. Human Relations, 35, 717-726.
Daniels, F.S., & Landers, D.M. (198 1). Do the eyes have it? American Rijleman, 129,
38-39.
INSTRUCTOR-SET GOALS
121
Edwards, R. (1988). The effects of performance standards on behavior patterns and motor
skill achievement in children. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 7,90-102.
French, J.R., Kay, E., & Meyer, H.H. (1966). Participation and the appraisal system.
Human Relations, 19, 3-21.
Gaa, J.P. (1979). The effect of individual goal setting conferences on academic achievement
and modification of locus of control orientation. Psychology in the Schools, 16,
591-598.
Hall, H.K., & Byme, A.T.J. (1988). Goal setting in sport: Clarifying recent anomalies.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10, 188-198.
Hall, H.K., Weinberg, R.S., & Jackson, A. (1983). fie effects of goal setting upon the
performance of a circuit training task. Paper presented at the TAHPERD Conference,
Corpus Christi, TX.
Hollingsworth, B. (1975). Effects of performance goals and anxiety on learning of a gross
motor task. Research Quarterly, 46(2), 162-168.
Jager, R.L. (1984). Sampling in educating and the social sciences. New York: Longman.
Latham, G.P., Steele, T.P., & Saari, L.M. (1982). The effects of participation and goal
difficulty on performance. Personnel Psychology, 35, 677-686.
Latham, G.P., & Yulk; G.A. (1976). Effects of assigned and participant goal setting on
performance and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(2), 166- 171.
Lee, A.M., & Edwards, R. (1984a). Assigned and self-selected goals as determinants of
motor skill performance. Education, 105, 87-91.
Lee, A.M., & Edwards, R. (1984b). Selj-determined and externally imposedperformance
stMdards in children. Paper presented at the SDAAHPERD Convention, Biloxi, MS.
Locke, E.A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational
Behavior and Human P e g o m n c e , 3, 157-189.
Locke, E.A., &Bryan, J.F. (1966). Cognitive aspects of psychomotor performance: The
effects of performance goals on level of performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
50(4), 286-291.
Locke, E.A., & Bryan, J.A. (1967). Performance goals as determinants of level of performance and boredom. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 120-130.
Locke, E.A., Bryan, J.A., & Kendall, L.M. (1968). Goal and intentions as mediators
of the effects of monetary incentives on behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology,
52, 104-121.
Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (1985). The application of goal setting to sports. Journal
of Sport Psychology, 7 , 205-222.
Locke, E.A., & Schweiger, D.M. (1979). Participation in decision making: One more look.
In B.M. Shaw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 1) (pp. 265-339).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
National Rifle Association. (1987). NRA marksmanship qualijication coursesfor ripe and
pistol (Report No. AQA 00150 ISM 984). Washington, DC: NRA Education and
Training Div.
Porac, C., & Coren, S. (1976). The dominant eye. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 880-897.
Schunk, D.H. (1983). Developing children's self-efficacy and skills: The roles of social
comparative information and goal setting. ContemporaryEducational Psychology,
8, 76-86.
Stitchner, T., Weinberg, R.S., & Jackson, A. (1983). Goal setting and its effects on
endurance performance. Paper presented at the TAHPERD Conference, Corpus
Christi, TX.
122
BOYCE
Weinberg, R.S., Bruya, L.D., Garland, H., & Jackson, A. (1986). Goal dificulty and
endurance pelfonnance: A challenge to the goal attainability assumption. Paper
presented at NASPSPA Conference, Scottsdale, AZ.
Weinberg, R., Bmya, L., Longino, J., & Jackson, A. (1988). Effect of goal proximity
and specificity on endurance performance of primary-grade children. Journal of
Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10, 81-91.
STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT, AND CIRCULATION OF
THE JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION (ISSN 0273-5024),
as required by 39 U.S. Code 3685:
The J o m 1 of Teaching in Physical Education (ISSN 0273-5024) is published
4 times a year (quarterly). Subscription fees are $32 per year for individuals and
$64 for institutions.
The owner of the Journal of Teaching in Physical Education is Human Kinetics
Publishers, Inc., whose office is at 1607 North Market St., Champaign, IL
61820-2200. The editors are T.J. Martinek, School of HPERD, Univ. of North
Carolina, Greensboro, NC 27412; and J. Rink, Blatt P.E. Center, Univ. of South
Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208. The publisher is Rainer Martens, P.O. Box 5076,
Champaign, IL 61825-5076. There are no bondholders, mortgagees, or other security
holders.
Average number of copies printed per issue (net press run) during the
preceding 12 months-1 179; number of copies nearest to filing date-1284. Average
number of copies of each issue during preceding 12 months distributed after mass
mailing to subscribers-120; number of copies nearest to filing date-30. Average
number of copies of each issue during preceding 12 months distributed in mass
mailing to subscribers-660; number of copies nearest to filing date-556. Average number of copies of each issue during preceding 12 months distributed free-33;
number of copies nearest to filing date-34.