Personally, I find it very hard to articulate learning goals in the forethought phase, because I’m still lacking insight on the task but I also evaluate the learning process as a fluid that might lead to paths that I cannot predict apriori. I think that it is very rare for a person to be completely aware of what they are going to learn before it happens, and even if they are able to, it’s even less likely that they are going to achieve exactly what they set out to in the beginning. I would also argue that the nature and duration of a task play a big role in how goal setting happens. The longer the task, the more possibilities for alterations both for the individual’s orientation and the task.

This brings me to my next point regarding the classes of goals that are discussed in Pintrich’s article. In the article, “purpose goals or goal orientations reflect the more general reasons an individual does a task” (Pintrich, 2000). However, afterwards, those purpose or performance goals are analyzed socially, in the sense of comparing one’s progress to others, or trying to ‘best’ others. This made me think that the individual purpose viewpoint is missing. Since Panadero (2017) highlights that an implication of goal orientation is that students might self-regulate towards avoidance goals (p.23), Ι thought of extending the discussion of facilitating a positive classroom environment for the students, performance goals, and propose that performance goals, either approach or avoidant, could be addressed more to raise the students’ self-awareness. In my experience, as a learner when I was briefly studying about learning sciences and learned about the revised Bloom’s taxonomy (Krathwohl, 2002) and other methods for goal setting, e.g SMART Method, it was only in regards to mastery goals. Perhaps if equal attention was given on how to set performance goals, I would have had a better understanding of why I am approaching a task and activate more of my SRL processes.