The art of goal setting

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

Reading time: 4 minutes

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

Goals as doors

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

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

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

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

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

Understanding where goals come from

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

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

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

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

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

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

Setting goals

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

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

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

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

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

Expecting goals to change

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

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

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

This leads to two questions:

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

More blogs from Pearson

  • A girl with her phone walking outside

    Phone bans in schools: What do teachers need to know?

    By Charlotte Guest
    Reading time: 5 minutes

    Should students be allowed to use their phones at school? It is a question being discussed by teachers, schools and families around the world. Smartphones can support learning and communication, but they can also distract students, affect face-to-face interaction and create new challenges for teachers.

    No single approach works for every school. Different countries, communities and schools have different needs. However, recent research and policy changes can help teachers think about how phone use affects learning, behavior and wellbeing.

    Why are schools restricting phones?

    One main concern is distraction. A phone gives students access to messages, social media, games and other online content during the school day. Even when a student is not actively using their phone, notifications or the possibility of receiving a message can make it harder to concentrate.

    Some schools have responded by introducing restrictions or complete bans. Others allow phones at certain times, such as during breaks, or allow them when they are being used for learning.

    The approach varies between countries. For example, England introduced statutory guidance on mobile phones in schools in June 2026. Schools are expected to follow the guidance from this month. It says schools should be mobile phone-free by default throughout the school day, including lessons, the time between lessons, break times and lunchtime.

    Teachers outside England should not see this as a rule they need to follow. Instead, it is one example of how governments and education systems are responding to concerns about smartphones.

    What does the research say on phone bans?

    Research does not give a simple answer.

    The SMART Schools study looked at 1,227 students aged 12–15 across 30 secondary schools in England. The researchers compared schools with different types of phone policies.

    Students in schools with restrictive policies spent less time using their phones and social media during school hours. However, the study did not find evidence of better overall mental wellbeing or lower phone and social media use across the whole week. The researchers concluded that restricting phones at school alone may not change young people's wider phone habits. More recent research shows why the issue is complicated. The University of Birmingham published findings from interviews with 177 students, parents and school staff across seven schools. The research found both benefits and negative consequences associated with different types of phone policies.

    Students in schools with restrictive policies reported more face-to-face interaction during the school day. However, some students also said they used their phones more outside school to make up for the time they could not use them during the school day. The researchers also found that online bullying and conflicts could continue to affect students at school, even when phones were not available.

    A phone ban is not a digital safety lesson

    Whether a school bans phones or allows limited use, students still need to understand how to use technology safely. Young people may experience cyberbullying, unwanted contact, harmful content or pressure from social media outside school. They need support to understand these risks and to know where to go for help.

    This is particularly important for teachers. A phone-free classroom can reduce some distractions, but it cannot remove every problem connected to smartphones and social media. Research from the SMART Schools project found that online problems could continue into the school day. For example, disagreements that began on social media or in group chats could later affect relationships between students in the classroom.

    This means phone policies work best as one part of a wider approach to digital literacy, online safety and student wellbeing.

    What can teachers do to support mobile policy?

    The first step is to understand your school's policy and apply it consistently. Students should know when phones can be used, where they should be kept and what happens if the rules are not followed. It can also help to explain why a policy exists. Instead of presenting phone restrictions as simply another rule, teachers can talk with students about attention, notifications, social media and the effect of constant interruptions on learning.

    Schools should also consider individual needs. The current guidance in England, for example, recognizes that some students may need phone access because of a disability, special educational need, medical condition or other specific circumstance.

    For schools in other countries, local laws, safeguarding requirements and student needs should guide these decisions.

    What should schools consider about phone use policy?

    There is unlikely to be one phone policy that works for every school. A primary school, secondary school, international school or university may have very different needs.

    Teachers and school leaders can consider questions such as:

    • Does phone use regularly interrupt learning?
    • When, if ever, can phones support learning?
    • How will students contact their families during the school day?
    • Are there students who need phone access for medical or accessibility reasons?
    • How will the school respond to online bullying or conflicts that continue into school?
    • Are students being taught how to use technology safely and responsibly?

    The current evidence suggests that phone policies can affect students in different ways. Restrictions may reduce phone use during the school day, but research does not show that a ban alone solves wider issues around wellbeing, behavior or digital habits.

    For teachers, the bigger question may not simply be “Should students have their phones?” but “How can we create an environment where technology supports learning rather than getting in the way?” As more schools and education systems introduce or review phone policies, continuing to listen to teachers and students and to follow the research can help schools make decisions that fit their own communities.

  • A child in a classroom working on a laptop smiling

    AI and safeguarding in the classroom: What teachers need to know

    By Charlotte Guest
    Reading time: 4 minutes

    Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming more common in education. Teachers and students may use AI tools to create ideas, support learning, translate text or find information. But as AI becomes part of everyday classroom life, safeguarding needs to remain a priority.

    Safeguarding is about protecting children and young people from harm. When using AI, this means thinking carefully about privacy, online safety, inappropriate content and how students interact with technology.

    Protect students' personal information

    One of the most important safeguarding issues is privacy. Students may be tempted to enter personal information into an AI tool without understanding where that information goes or how it may be used. Personal information could include a student's full name, address, school details, photographs, contact information or information about their family. It could also include sensitive information about their health, behavior or personal circumstances.

    Teachers can help by setting clear rules about what students should and should not share with AI tools. If students are using AI in class, use activities that do not require them to enter personal or sensitive information.

  • A woman working in a office concentrating on her laptop

    Is AI scoring unreliable?

    By Alice Bazzi
    Reading time: 2 minutes

    Artificial intelligence has transformed many industries, but in education, one question persists: can you truly trust AI to assess language skills?

    The short answer is yes, and in many cases, AI scoring is more reliable than traditional methods. PTE Express uses advanced machine-learning models trained on hundreds of thousands of real responses to evaluate language proficiency consistently at scale. 

    Unlike human examiners, AI does not experience fatigue, bias, or inconsistency. Every test is assessed using the same criteria, ensuring fairness for all candidates regardless of location or volume. Additionally, AI scoring is not developed in isolation. It is built and continuously refined using input from linguistic experts and large datasets, ensuring that scoring reflects real-world language use and academic expectations.