THIS research looks at how target setting and as-
sessment for learning can improve the progress of
students. The Assessment Reform Group [2] define as-
sessment for learning (AfL) as “the process of seeking
and interpreting evidence for use by learners and their
teachers to decide where learners are in their learning,
where they need to go and how best to get there”. Af-
ter briefly considering previous research, I will outline a
small case study I undertook in order to assess the impact
of target setting on student learning and reflect on how
the study affected student motivation and performance.
The findings of this paper are drawn from research
undertaken at a medium-sized sixth form college in the
United Kingdom (UK). The college offered a broad range
of academic and vocational courses, including a wide
number of GCE Advanced Level provision. In particu-
lar, my case study focuses on a randomly selected student
from a Post-16 GCSE-resit class. In summary, my find-
ings generally concur with the research of Hannafin [1]
as the learner attained each target that they were in-
volved in setting, while, they did not think that they had
reached the targets that had been set by the teacher.
A wide array of research exists regarding target set-
ting within education. A good deal of it points to the
value of AfL as an aid when setting goals within a teach-
ing strategy. A brief summary of some of the research
within this area follows.
Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) [3]
state that effective targets “help schools to articulate
clearly what is expected of each pupil, class or group
or indeed of the school as a whole”. Teachers should use
AfL in order to set specific, challenging learning goals
with their students in order to improve learning [4].
Dagley [5] reports that the key principle of AfL is
in order to give learners a target or next step to aim
for, while, Boaler [6, Chapter 4] adds that it’s success
is based upon students having “a full and clear sense of
what they are learning, of where they are in the path
towards mastery, and what they have to do to become
successful”.
It is worth adding that despite some clear advantages
to AfL, there are both good and bad ways in order to
implement this [7]. In particular, feedback should focus
on how the individual can improve rather than how well
they have when compared with others [8], while, the tar-
gets must be seen as “relevant or meaningful by those
involved” [9].
The importance of setting targets has been now gen-
erally accepted by education practitioners as the ma-
jority of schools within the UK make use of target set-
ting [10] and they also provide a key strategy for school
improvement [11]. Note that simply setting a target does
not mean it will be achieved [5].
To provide some accountability, Martinez [12, pp.
1] suggests that the targets should be “owned by the
learner” in order to provide cognitive, emotional and mo-
tivating benefits. Transferring control from teacher to
learner has become more common [1] as students are en-
couraged to take a greater responsibility for their learn-
ing [10]. In particular, there is evidence (see e.g. [13])
that a target is meaningful only if the learner is truly
committed to achieving them and in order for a target
to be valid, it must be perceived as valuable [14].
Another key factor is the importance of setting
achievable targets. In particular, there is a need for de-
manding yet achievable targets since “without challenge,
Target setting: a case study looking at how greater collaboration can
impact the effectiveness of target setting
ALED WILLIAMS
London School of Economics and Political Science
London, UK
Abstract:-This research looks at how target setting and assessment for learning can improve the progress of
students. In particular, we consider by means of a case study how involved students should be during the target
setting process. Our findings generally concur with the research [1] since the student attained all targets which
she was involved in setting, while she did not think she had reached all those teacher set targets.
Keywords:- Assessment for learning (AfL), case study, feedback, target setting.
Received: October 10, 2022. Accepted: November 5, 2022. Published: November 18, 2022.
1. Introduction
2. Background Literature
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2022.19.169
Aled Williams
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
1879
Volume 19, 2022
learners will not achieve to the best of their abilities, but
if targets are not achievable, demoralisation and disen-
gagement will follow” [12, pp. 1]. However, if targets
are unachievable, then setting these is a senseless task
and demoralisation and disengagement will follow [9,12].
Further, it clear that targets must be measurable, how-
ever, one must take care to not use those targets that
are easily measured “rather than those that are actu-
ally worth measuring” [12, pp. 2]. Finally, in terms of
outcomes, the learner’s focus should not be on compar-
ing performance with peers, but instead it should be on
their own progress and on those steps they must take to
achieve the desired goal [12].
The research was undertaken at a medium-sized sixth
form college in the UK. The student was selected from
their class via a simple random sampling process [15,
Chapter 4] and their characteristics have some similar-
ity to their class population as a whole. The student
was from a mixed-attainment GCSE resit class of twenty
students. The student received an F in their initial ex-
amination and was retaking with the aim of attaining C
grade. As a lower attaining student, we hoped that the
study would help the student achieve a C grade because
AfL is a powerful tool “for improving the learning of low
attaining students” [12, pp. 3].
Similarly to [16], we began the case study by firstly
outlining the plan for the four weeks and by asking the
learner to compose a list of their goals, both academic
and nonacademic, as shown in Figure 1. By gathering
this initial information, we had a way of passing owner-
ship to the learner and that may motivate them as sug-
gested by Hannafin [1], who states that “students who
set their own learning goals attain more of them”.
Fig. 1: The learner’s initial goals, both academic and
non-academic.
We decided to test the suggestion that learner are
more likely to meet targets that they have created [1].
In particular, for comparison, the student had to:
•create one learning target based on the goals they
listed,
•discuss with their teacher in order to create a target
together, and
•be given a target solely by their teacher.
In particular, the student was given three targets to work
towards, namely, a student created, a jointly created and
a teacher created target.
Acee, Cho, Kim and Weinstein [16] stress the im-
portance of students having clear and measurable tar-
gets. In light of this, upon setting the third target the
teacher clearly explained the goal and the effort required
to achieve it. Further, some problems and model so-
lutions were provided to the student in order to demon-
strate the level of work required to attain the target. It is
important to keep targets under review (see e.g. [12, pp.
12]) and it is critical that time frame has been speci-
fied [16]. It was agreed to review progress after a two
week period in consequence.
Upon meeting for the first time, their progress in
attaining each target was discussed. In particular, the
learner’s performance is set out in Table 1. The data
concurs with the research [1] since the leaner met both
targets they were involved in creating but not for the tar-
get that their teacher had had set. This may linked to a
learner underestimating their development and, as such,
setting more easily attainable goals than their teachers.
Subject Set By? Week Met (S)? Met (T)?
Fractions S 1 Y Y
Plotting J 1 Y Y
New Line T 1 N N
Substitute S 3 Y Y
Exchange J 3 Y Y
Equals T 3 N Y
Table 1: This table shows in the second column who set
each target, namely the student (S), jointly (J) or solely
the teacher (T) and in columns four and five we show
if the student and teacher think each target was met,
respectively.
Three new targets were set for the next two week pe-
riod, using the same process as previously. The learner’s
performance when compared with their targets (Table
1) again concurs with Hannafin’s research [1] as on self-
reflection the student thought they had met both of the
targets she was involved in creating, but not the target
that their teacher had set. Despite this, in their teacher’s
opinion the learner had achieved this target and attained
all of their learning goals. Hannafin [1] explains this
underestimation of progress by suggesting that students
evaluate their own progress more favourably upon set-
ting their own learning goals.
Undertaking small scale research, as in this case
study, has both advantages and disadvantages. For ex-
ample, one should be careful to not generalise the re-
sults of such research as the findings require further test-
ing to corroborate them before firm conclusions can be
drawn [15, Chapter 9]. Furthermore, it could be argued
that despite the pupil being chosen at random, is the
selected pupil actually representative more widely. How-
ever, provided these limitations are recognised, there is
merit in conducting such research. In particular, the
benefit of such a case study is that it facilitates the col-
3. Research Design
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2022.19.169
Aled Williams
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
1880
lection of more individual views, which may not be so
easily obtained in larger scale projects [15, Chapter 11].
As mentioned previously, the case study began by
asking the learner to list ten aspirations, academic and
non-academic, which were important to them (see Figure
1). The goals they listed relating to mathematics were:
“improving at fractions and graphs, doing more past pa-
pers and passing my A Levels”. This demonstrates their
focus on doing well in examinations, which is no surprise
since this is a sixth form college environment, where ex-
aminations are the constant nuclei of attention for stu-
dents and teachers alike.
To devise the targets, the teacher firstly asked why
fractions and graphs were listed. The student suggested
that their teacher had indicated they struggled with
these topics and knew they could improve. In particu-
lar, the learner suggested as a target that they would
“get better at fractions”. Bearing in mind work [16]
which suggests that clear attainment enhancement is
more likely when specific academic learning goals are
set, it was suggested that they select some classwork,
past papers and a worksheet to do during the next two
weeks to judge progress.
The student and the teacher then worked together
to devise a second target based on graphs. This was
another topic that the learner had identified and their
mock examination demonstrated that their method did
not align with the suggested mark scheme. It is worth
noting that the student tended to draw graphs freehand
without creating a table of values and used small dots,
which were indecipherable to the assessor, in order to
indicate the location of each point. It was agreed for as
a second target that they would create a table of values
associated to each graph she drew and plot each point
with a cross. As in the first target, it was agreed to
measure progress using relevant classwork, past papers
and a worksheet. Further, it was explained that rather
than trying to complete all of the questions, the stu-
dent should focus on creating a table of values and using
crosses for each point in all the graphs they plotted.
As a third target, we focused on how to improve upon
the layout of the learner’s work. Here this target was
suggested as they often completed several simplifications
and calculations on a line, implying a lack of understand-
ing about the meaning of the equals sign. Progress in
this case would be measured by looking at the class-
work and past papers that they completed and as an
aid, some some model solutions demonstrating how to
set work with a new line for each step were provided.
Then we met to review progress after two weeks.
With respect to the first target, namely fractions, the
improvement was stark. The student was now clearly
showing a method and so was making significantly less
mistakes than before. While their method was not the
most efficient, they were using it accurately and obtain-
ing correct answers. Note that fractions had been an area
of weakness for this student and this progress meant it
was now an area of strength.
For the second target, namely plotting graphs, their
work again demonstrated exemplary progress. Now, the
student was creating a table of values and plotting graphs
accurately using crosses. However, some graphing issues
were noticed when substituting values into the function
to create the table of values. In light of this, it was
suggested that they could improve accuracy during sub-
stitution and that this could be a good next target. This
was agreed upon and we would meet again to review
progress in a similar way.
The learner additionally demonstrated progress in at-
taining the third target. The layout of work was logical
and systematic, answers were circled and a new line used
for each step. However, a sporadic use of the equals sign
when simplifying algebraic expressions and solving lin-
ear equations was noticed. Dixon and Haigh [4] point to
the importance of reflecting on targets with students and,
with this in mind, possible improvements that could lead
to achieving the target were discussed before the teacher
then suggested building on this progress by making use
of a new line for each step in algebra.
The meaning of the equals sign was also discussed at
this point an, to aid progress, a spot the mistake activity
was provided. This asked the leaner to highlight where
the equals sign was used incorrectly and explain why it
was wrongly used. This forced them to think about the
symbol, which we hoped would mean that they use it
correctly in the future. Further, it was agreed to review
a new target based the spot the mistake activity and
relevant classwork and past papers in two weeks.
Finally, the learner was asked what else they wanted
to focus on during the next two weeks, upon suggesting
they looked through her recent examination paper if they
did not have a topic in mind. In light of this, they asked
to look at currency exchange problems, as this was a
topic they completely avoided in the exam. When asked
what they wanted to achieve and how we would actually
measure this, they said “to be able to change between
currencies easily” and suggested practicing examination
questions to demonstrate progress. The vagueness of this
response is in keeping with Dagley [5] who suggested that
overly general targets may follow when the teacher hands
the student responsibility for target setting.
The suggested target was agreed upon and addition-
ally the teacher set two further questions to work on.
This was since we wished to ensure progress was not
solely focused on passing an examination since “teach-
ing children to pass tests benefits no one and renders
school boring for the able, and disastrous for the less
able” [14]. After a further two weeks, we met to assess
their progress against the second batch of targets and
review the target setting exercise as a whole.
Boaler [6, Chapter 4] reports that self assessment
teaches learners about what constitutes high quality
work and provides them with information on their own
understanding. Therefore, we asked the learner how
they thought they had performed in previous two weeks.
Their comments chimed with the finding that students
4. Analysis
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2022.19.169
Aled Williams
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
1881
evaluate their progress more favourably when they have
set their own goals [1] since they believed that they
achieved both targets that they were involved in setting,
while, not the target was set by the teacher.
On the third target, the student indicated while they
was using a new line for each new operation, their under-
standing of the equals sign remained unclear. Looking
through their work, the teacher demonstrated that they
had correctly highlighted when an equals sign had been
incorrectly used and their classwork showed she was now
using the equals sign more logically and attempting to
use a new line for each operation.
Reviewing the learner’s progress on substitution,
their work was clearly more accurate than when they
did this in combination with plotting graphs. Similarly,
they had answered all exchange rate questions correctly.
Finally, we asked two final questions to see if they un-
derstood the techniques demonstrated. Here the learner
struggled to talk through their workings so we asked
how they knew whether to multiply or divide. It seems
that they simply memorised a rule that since they stated
“when we go on holiday we are going to have a nice time
so we multiply while when we come home we will di-
vide”. This demonstrated that the learner had a method
which did not work in generality and left them struggling
when changing between two currencies which did not in-
clude sterling. This highlights the importance of choos-
ing tasks which emphasise key ideas and allow students
to consider misconceptions as they progress towards mas-
tery. Since the learner had shown fluency in answering
the past paper questions on currency, they had made
sufficient progress to attain the learning goal, however,
we agreed to do further work to allow fluent conversion
between all currencies.
Upon reviewing all targets the learner worked towards
during the case study exercise, it is fair to conclude that
they made good progress. They are now equipped to as-
sess their own performance in a meaningful way in future.
Further, they will be able to continue setting learning
goals, on their own or with the support of teachers, and
can use feedback she receives on their work to self-assess
her progress.
The four week exercise with this learner was hugely
beneficial. However, it could be argued that this im-
provement is linked to the time she now has to revise for
the examination, since this has been shown to increase
attainment [17]. It would therefore be unwise to suggest
their progress is solely due to target setting. At the end
of the exercise the learner was asked how they had found
the exercise and how they thought it could be improved
for others. They said “It helped me enormously since
over a couple of weeks my marks have got better and
I’m more confident doing maths. I feel the targets we
set together were best since we talked about the areas
I needed to work on and you could also add anything
specific that I should think about. I’m glad I had this
opportunity and hope other students get the same chance
in future”.
It is hoped that this research provides some appreci-
ation that giving students freedom and responsibility to
create their learning goals is a positive step. In partic-
ular, it could pay dividend with some highly motivated
students and in turn, yield effective performance. In line
with research [16] and the feedback from this case study,
one should ensure targets are specific, measurable and
meaningful to the students concerned.
However, it must be remembered that unlike in this
case study, time to formulate meaningful targets with
students is an issue for teachers. Here it was possible to
work with a student on a one-to-one basis but expecting
teachers to do this way with each learner is unrealistic.
One suggestion is that one could provide a high-level of
support early in the year, where support is set individual
targets. This support could then be reduced over time
as students gain more understanding of how to go about
setting meaningful targets [1].
This task does not need to necessarily be onerous for
teachers. In particular, this case study supports Han-
nafin’s [1] suggestion that teachers can undertake do
this most effectively by handing responsibility for setting
goals to the students themselves. Further, that students
who are involved in setting their targets will be more
engaged in attaining them and it will deliver the best
possible outcome for both teachers and students alike.
[1] Michael J Hannafin. Effects of teacher and stu-
dent goal setting and evaluations on mathematics
achievement and student attitudes. The Journal of
Educational Research, 74(5):321–326, 1981.
[2] Assessment Reform Group. Assessment for learn-
ing: 10 principles. Research-based principles to
guide classroom practice. University of Cambridge,
School of Education, 2002.
[3] Ofsted. Setting targets to raise standards: A survey
of good practice, 1996.
[4] Helen Dixon and Mavis Haigh. Changing mathe-
matics teachers’ conceptions of assessment and feed-
back. An international journal of teachers’ profes-
sional development, 13(2):173–186, 2009.
[5] Valerie Dagley. Pupils’ perceptions of the efficacy
of target setting and how it can be made more ef-
fective. Pastoral Care in Education, 22(2):14–18,
2004.
[6] Jo Boaler. The elephant in the classroom: Helping
children learn and love maths. London: Souvenir
Press, 2015.
[7] William Emeny. Are mini-whiteboards the ultimate
teaching and learning resource?, 2012.
[8] Dylan Wiliam. Keeping learning on track: Class-
room assessment and the regulation of learning. Sec-
ond handbook of research on mathematics teaching
and learning, pages 1053–1098, 2007.
[9] Michael Fielding. Target setting, policy pathology
and student perspectives: learning to labour in new
5. Conclusion
References
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2022.19.169
Aled Williams
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
1882
times. Cambridge Journal of Education, 29(2):277–
287, 1999.
[10] Mike Younger and Molly Warrington. Mentoring
and target-setting in a secondary school in england:
an evaluation of aims and benefits. Oxford Review
of Education, 35(2):169–185, 2009.
[11] Sue Waite, Hazel Lawson, and Carolyn Bromfield.
Individual target setting in a mainstream and spe-
cial school: Tensions in understanding and owner-
ship. Educational Studies, 35(2):107–121, 2009.
[12] Paul Martinez. Great Expectations: Setting Targets
for Students. The Agency Reports. ERIC, 2001.
[13] John Blanchard. Targets, assessment for learning,
and whole-school improvement. Cambridge Journal
of Education, 33(2):257–271, 2003.
[14] Mervyn Flecknoe. Target setting: will it help to
raise achievement? Educational Management & Ad-
ministration, 29(2):217–228, 2001.
[15] Louis Cohen, Lawrence Manion, and Keith Morri-
son. Research methods in education. New York:
Routledge, 6 edition, 2007.
[16] Taylor W Acee, YoonJung Cho, Jung-In Kim, and
Claire Ellen Weinstein. Relationships among prop-
erties of college students’ self-set academic goals
and academic achievement. Educational Psychology,
32(6):681–698, 2012.
[17] John Hattie. Visible learning: A synthesis of over
800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Rout-
ledge, 2008.
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
(Attribution 4.0 International, CC BY 4.0)
This article is published under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License 4.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en_US
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2022.19.169
Aled Williams
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
1883