Conley 2003

8/12/2019 Conley 2003

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conley-2003 1/19

International Journal of Educational Research 39 (2003) 319–337

Chapter 1

Current issues in achievement goal theoryand research

Paul R. Pintrich, AnneMarie M. Conley , Toni M. KemplerCombined Program in Education and Psychology, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,

Michigan 48109, USA

Abstract

This article focuses on three general areas of research on achievement goal theory, includingthe denition and role of achievement goals, the role of contextual goals and factors, and the

measurement and induction of goals. Issues regarding the denition of achievement goalsinclude the generality of the approach/avoid dimension and the consequences of adoptingmultiple goals. Contextual issues center around the processing of classroom informationrelated to goal adoption and the role of goals in collaborative learning groups. Measurementissues include questions about the measurement of achievement goal orientations, measuringgoals in context, and the validity of contextual goal measures.r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Achievement goals; Motivation; Multiple goals; Contextual goals; Measurement

1. Introduction

Research on achievement goal theory is currently one of the most active areas of research on student motivation in academic settings. The research has developed inthe last twenty years or so from early research on the role of different goals,

ARTICLE IN PRESS

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedures

0883-0355/$- see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2004.06.002

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-734-764-3439; Fax: +1-734-615-2164.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P.R. Pintrich), [email protected] (A.M. Conley),

[email protected] (T.M. Kempler).

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedures

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedures

8/12/2019 Conley 2003


attributions, and beliefs about intelligence, success, failure, effort, and ability (e.g.,Dweck & Leggett, 1988 ; Nicholls, 1984 ). Research has examined how different typesof achievement goals relate to a host of student outcomes such as cognition, self-regulation, motivation, affect, achievement, and learning. In addition, research hasinvestigated how different contextual factors in classrooms or in laboratory settingscan lead to the adoption of different goals ( Elliot, 1997 ; Urdan, 1997 ). The researchhas yielded a number of important generalizations about student motivation andlearning in classrooms (see Pintrich & Schunk, 2002 ), but there remain a number of important issues to resolve in future research.

The purpose of this article is to discuss some of these current issues in research onachievement goal theory. We focus on three general areas, including the denitionand role of achievement goals, the role of contextual goals and contextual factors,and the measurement and induction of goals. For each of these three areas we pointout the important issues that need to be resolved and make suggestions for futureresearch efforts.

2. The Denition and Role of Achievement Goals

There are a number of different models of goals and goal orientations that havebeen advanced by different achievement motivation researchers (cf. Ames, 1992 ;Dweck & Leggett, 1988 ; Elliot, 1997 ; Harackiewicz, Barron, & Elliot, 1998 ; Maehr &

Midgley, 1991 ; Nicholls, 1984 ; Pintrich, 2000a ). These models vary somewhat intheir denition of goals and goal orientation and the use of different labels forsimilar constructs. There also is disagreement on the number of goals and the role of approach and avoidance forms of the different goals. Finally, there is not consensuson the role of multiple goals and their role in motivating individuals. We discussthese three general issues and make suggestions for future research that will help toclarify these denitional and conceptual issues, as they are crucial for advances in theeld.

2.1. The denition and meaning of achievement goals

Goal constructs are important in most social cognitive models of motivation,although there are a plethora of different goal constructs and models ( Austin &Vancouver, 1996 ). Given the diversity in models and constructs, there have beendifferences in the literature about the denition and meaning of achievement goalsand goal orientations. First, within research on achievement goals, there have been anumber of different labels used for essentially the same construct, including thelabels mastery, task-involved, and learning goals to represent a general goal of improving competence, learning, and mastery of the task, and performance, ego-involved, and relative ability goals to represent the goal of demonstrating

competence and doing better than others. Although there are some subtle differencesbetween the theoretical models behind these different labels (cf. Ames, 1992 ; Dweck& Leggett, 1988 ; Nicholls, 1984 ; Pintrich, 2000a ), the labels mastery and

ARTICLE IN PRESS

P.R. Pintrich et al. / Int. J. Educ. Res. 39 (2003) 319–337 320

8/12/2019 Conley 2003


performance have become the most commonly used terms and we will continue inthis tradition.

Besides the disagreements about the labels for mastery and performance goals,there has been confusion about the denition, meaning, and use of the terms goalsand goal orientations. At one level, both these terms are used to distinguishachievement goals and orientations from achievement motives. Achievement goalsand orientations are assumed to be cognitive representations of what individuals aretrying to do or what they want to achieve and are more domain, situation, or taskspecic. In contrast, achievement motives are implicit, less conscious, more affective,and also much more general constructs regarding the arousal of the individual in allachievement situations ( Thrash & Elliot, 2001 ). Accordingly, achievement goals andgoal orientations are not motives in the classic achievement motivation tradition.

In addition, although some articles have described achievement goals along anumber of different dimensions (e.g., Anderman & Maehr, 1994 ) that includeattributions, affect, beliefs about intelligence, effort, success and failure, it should notbe assumed that all of these dimensions are part of the achievement goal construct. Itwas the point of these articles to demonstrate the theoretical and empirical linkagesbetween achievement goals and other relevant motivational and cognitive constructs,but they are not part of the achievement goal construct. Achievement goals andorientations are often related to these other constructs in a consistent manner, butgoals are clearly distinct from attributions, theories of intelligence, success, failure,and affective reactions.

However, a current issue in the eld is the nature of achievement goals and goalorientations and how similar or different they are from other goal constructs. First,achievement goals and goal orientations are more specic to achievement tasks thanbroader life goals, such as those generated from a goal content approach ( Wentzel,2000 ), which includes many different goals (e.g., happiness, intimacy, friendship,material gain, etc.). At the same time, the term goal orientation has generally beenused to signal that achievement goals are broader constructs than specic targetgoals for a task. Target goals are the specic ends or results that individuals want toachieve, such as get 8 out of 10 problems correct on a history quiz, which could beclassied as specic achievement goals ( Harackiewicz & Sansone, 1991 ). Achieve-

ment goal orientations are then mid-range constructs that occupy the conceptualspace between very specic target goals and more general life goals.

Achievement goal orientations represent the individual’s ‘‘orientation’’ to the taskor situation, their general focus or purpose for achievement, and not just the specictarget goal they have for the task. In this sense of achievement goal orientations, theconstruct may include both the general focus or purpose for achievement, such asmastery or performance, as well as the standards or criteria that individuals may useto dene their goals, such as self-referenced standards of improvement or socialcomparative standards vis-a-vis others ( Pintrich, 2000a ). In this denition, masterygoals reect a focus on developing competence, learning, and understanding the task

and the use of self-referenced standards of improvement. Performance goals reectan orientation to demonstrating competence, being superior to others, and the use of social comparative or normative standards. This goal orientation is more narrowly

ARTICLE IN PRESS


8/12/2019 Conley 2003


focused on achievement than general life goals, but broader than specic target goalsfor achievement tasks.

Of course, there is a need for more research to examine the cognitiverepresentations of all these different goal constructs and how they are related toone another. Within achievement goal orientations, if there are two dimensions, afocus on mastery and performance, as well as self-referenced and social comparativestandards, then it may be possible that individuals could assemble these dimensionsin different combinations. For example, self-referenced standards of improvementare assumed to be part of the general focus on mastery. However, it is possible thatstudents might use the standard of getting a better grade than others (usually seen asan aspect of a performance goal) as an indicator that they have mastered and learnedthe course material. Analysis of these possibilities will require more experimentalresearch that examines how individuals assemble or construct the meanings of thesedifferent aspects of goals and goal orientations using reaction time methods andconnectionist models.

2.2. The generality of the approach/avoid dimension

In recent research, there has been a distinction made between approach andavoidance forms of performance goals. For example, Elliot and his colleagues (e.g.,Elliot, 1997 ; Elliot & 1997) make a distinction between two different types of performance goals, a performance-approach goal and a performance-avoid goal. They

suggest that individuals can be positively motivated to try to outperform others anddemonstrate their competence and superiority, reecting an approach orientation tothe general performance goal. In contrast, individuals also can be negativelymotivated to try to avoid failure and avoid looking dumb or stupid, or incompetent,what they label an avoidance orientation to the performance goal. Others have madea similar distinction in terms of approach and avoidance forms of performance goals(see Midgley et al., 1996 ; Skaalvik, 1997 ; Wolters, Yu, & Pintrich, 1996 ). In addition,although not empirically separated out as two distinct performance or ego goals inthe original models of Dweck and Nicholls, both of those models did include goals of avoiding judgments of incompetence or feeling dumb or stupid. There seems to be

little controversy over the need to separate approach and avoid forms of performance goals and, most importantly, that these two different types of performance goals have very different implications for motivation, cognition, andachievement ( Pintrich & Schunk, 2002 ). Some of the early empirical achievementgoal work that did not make this distinction is difcult to interpret given theconfounding of these two types of performance goals.

Although this approach/avoid distinction is accepted in reference to performancegoals, recently Pintrich (2000a, c) and Elliot (1999) have suggested that masteryavoid goals may be operating for some individuals. There may be occasions whenstudents are focused on avoiding misunderstanding or avoiding not learning or not

mastering the task. Some students who are more ‘‘perfectionistic’’ may use standardsof not getting it wrong or not doing it incorrectly relative to the task. These studentswould not be concerned about doing it wrong because of comparisons with others

ARTICLE IN PRESS


8/12/2019 Conley 2003


(a performance-avoid goal), but rather in terms of their own high standards forthemselves. Elliot and McGregor (2001) have examined the feasibility of a four-goalmodel and in factor analyses have found empirical support for the differentiation of the four goals. Moreover, it appears that mastery avoid goals are mainly related tonegative outcomes ( Elliot & McGregor, 2001 ) such as more anxiety and less adaptiveapproaches to studying and learning. This research is just emerging and it is not awell-accepted extension of the approach/avoid dimension to mastery goals. There isa clear need for more research on these somewhat counter-intuitive mastery avoidgoals.

2.3. The role and consequences of adopting multiple goals

In the original formulations, mastery and performance goals were generally seenas opposite ends of a single continuum and students were thought of as eithermastery or performance oriented. In addition, early experimental research usedbetween-subjects designs where mastery and performance goal conditions werecompared to one another in terms of their inuence on student outcomes. Thesetypes of designs do not allow for the testing of the role of multiple goals or theirinteractions, as participants are either in one goal condition or the other. However, itmay be that in the reality of the classroom students can endorse both mastery andperformance goals and different levels of both of these goals ( Meece & Holt, 1993 ;Pintrich, 2000a–c ; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991 ). In fact, in some classroom work,

mastery and performance goals are orthogonal or slightly positively related to eachother ( Pintrich & Schunk, 2002 ). If the two goals are somewhat orthogonal, then itraises the possibility that students could endorse different levels of both goals at thesame time. Moreover, different patterns in the levels of the two goals may lead todifferential outcomes.

Of course, under a multiple goals perspective (see Harackiewicz, Barron, Pintrich,Elliot, & Thrash, 2002 ), it is important to separate out the main effects andinteractions of at least three goals: mastery, performance-approach, and perfor-mance-avoid goals. There is little disagreement in the eld on the maladaptiveconsequences of adopting performance-avoid goals, but there is controversy over the

relative adaptive nature of performance-approach goals and their relation to masterygoals and various outcomes (cf. Harackiewicz et al., 2002 ; Kaplan & Middleton,2002 ; Midgley, Kaplan, & Middleton, 2001 ). Although there is a need to investigatehow performance-avoid goals interact with other goals, most of the research in thisarea has focused on the potential relations between mastery-approach andperformance-approach goals.

Barron and Harackiewicz (2001) have suggested four potential patterns for therelations between mastery and performance-approach goals. These four patterns areillustrated through a discussion of some of the empirical work we have undertaken inour research program at the University of Michigan.

The additive goal effects pattern suggests that mastery and performance-approachgoals can have independent positive main effects on the same outcomes ( Barron &Harackiewicz, 2001 ). For example, in Wolters et al. (1996) , in a two wave

ARTICLE IN PRESS


8/12/2019 Conley 2003


correlational study of middle school students in mathematics, English, and socialstudies classrooms, we found that both mastery-approach and performance-approach goals were positively related to self-efcacy, task value, cognitive strategyuse, and self-regulation at wave 2, even after controlling for the wave 1 measure of the outcome in regression analyses. In other words, mastery-approach andperformance-approach goals both led to positive changes in motivational and self-regulatory outcomes, independent of each other since they were both entered aspredictors in the same regression equations. Zusho, Pintrich, and Schnabel (2002) , ina correlational study of university students (including both Caucasian and Asian-Americans), found that mastery and performance-approach goals both predictedefcacy and interest for a mathematics task. We used structural equation modelingto demonstrate that students who were focused on both learning the task as well astrying to do better than others had higher judgments of their competence and higherlevels of interest, again showing that both goals had independent relations with thesame outcomes, in line with the additive effects hypothesis.

The second type of relation discussed by Barron and Harackiewicz (2001) is whatthey call the specialized goal pattern. In this case, there are different or specializedeffects for mastery-approach and performance-approach goals, with mastery-approach predicting some outcomes, and performance-approach predicting otheroutcomes. An important aspect of this work is the consideration of multipleoutcomes of motivation, cognition, self-regulation, learning, and achievement, not just performance or grades. Research with university students by Harackiewicz and

her colleagues (e.g., Harackiewicz et al., 1998 ) has consistently shown that mastery-approach goals were positively related to interest and intrinsic motivation, but thatperformance-approach goals were positive predictors of actual achievement, asindexed by grades or GPA. In our own work with university students, we also havefound evidence for specialized goal effects. For example, Zusho, Pintrich, andSchnabel (2003) , in a three-wave short-term longitudinal study in universitychemistry courses, found that even after controlling for wave 1 measures of outcomes, mastery-approach goals positively predicted the increase in the use of elaboration strategies. In contrast, performance-approach goals positively predictedan increase in the use of rehearsal strategies. Interestingly, in this case and in these

chemistry courses, the use of rehearsal strategies was positively related to actualachievement in the course (in terms of grades). This nding that performance-approach goals were related to rehearsal at least complements Harackiewicz et al.’s(1998) ndings regarding the strong link between performance-approach goals andachievement. At the same time, however, we did nd that performance-approachgoals were related to an increase in anxiety over the course of the term.

In another two-wave correlational study of university students, in Germany ineducational psychology classes, Pintrich, Zusho, Schiefele, and Pekrun (2001) , foundthat mastery-approach goals were related to an increase in interest in the coursematerial over time, partialling out earlier interest at wave 1, in line with

Harackiewicz et al. (1998) . In addition, in line with normative goal theory, theresults also revealed that mastery-approach goals lead to an increase in the use of elaboration and self-regulatory learning strategies over time. Finally, paralleling our

ARTICLE IN PRESS


8/12/2019 Conley 2003


study in American chemistry courses, performance-approach goals were related toan increase in anxiety over the course of the year. In addition, in this same studythere also was evidence for the additive effects hypothesis, with both mastery-approach and performance-approach goals having independent and positive effectson students’ reports of how much effort they exerted in the course. Students reportedthey increased their effort over the course of the year as a function of endorsing bothmastery and performance-approach goals.

The third pattern hypothesized by Barron and Harackiewicz (2001) is termed theinteractive goal effect. For example, given the positive patterns found for the separatemain effects of mastery goals and performance-approach goals (cf. Dweck &Leggett, 1988 ; Harackiewicz et al., 1998 ), it might be predicted from a multiple goalperspective that having high levels of both of these goals would result in someenhancement of motivation, cognition, or achievement. That is, independent of themain effects of the two goals, there may be an interaction between mastery-approachand performance-approach goals such that students who are high on both goals areadvantaged for some motivational, cognitive, or achievement outcomes. On theother hand, traditional goal theory would suggest that any concern withperformance, even a performance-approach orientation, could have negative effectson involvement due to distractions fostered by attention to comparisons with othersor to negative judgments regarding the self. Under this dampening or reductionperspective, the overall level of involvement that would be fostered by a mastery goalwould be less when students simultaneously endorse a performance-approach goal.

This lower level of overall involvement would then result in less positive outcomes.Accordingly, under this model, it would be hypothesized that the most adaptivepattern of multiple goals would be a high mastery, low performance-approachcombination.

The search for these types of interactions has been mixed; some studies nd them,most studies do not (see Harackiewicz et al., 2002 ), and when the interactions arefound, the pattern of results is mixed. For example, in the Wolters et al. (1996) study,using regression-based interaction terms, we did not nd many signicantinteractions between mastery and performance-approach goals, but the few thatdid emerge seemed to favor the normative goal theory prediction. In other classroom

studies with more person-centered analyses (e.g., using median splits or clusteringprocedures) to create groups of students in contrast to variable-centered analyses,the ndings also have been mixed. For example, Meece and Holt (1993) observedthat a high mastery-low performance group of elementary students had the mostadaptive pattern of cognitive strategy use as well as actual achievement, in line withnormative goal theory predictions. Pintrich and Garcia (1991) , also using clusteranalysis, found with a sample of college students that the high mastery-lowperformance group had the most adaptive prole. At the same time, we noted thatthe low mastery–high performance group did display some positive signs of motivation and cognition, at least in contrast to the low mastery–low performance

group. We suggested that in the absence of a mastery goal, at least a concern withperformance motivated college students to engage in their courses to some degree. Incontrast, Bouffard, Boisvert, Vezeau, and Larouche (1995) in another study of

ARTICLE IN PRESS


8/12/2019 Conley 2003


college students, using median splits to form groups, found that the highest levels of motivation, cognitive strategy use, self-regulation, and achievement were displayedby the high mastery–high performance group. The next best pattern was the highmastery–low performance group, followed by the low mastery–high performancegroup and the least adaptive pattern was found for the low mastery–lowperformance group. These results are more in line with a multiple goal perspectivethat proposes a more adaptive role for performance goals.

Pintrich (2000b) , also using a median split analysis of the four goal groups, foundvery consistent evidence in favor of the multiple goals perspective. Students were junior high students in the seventh and eighth grades and were in mathematicsclassrooms. The design was a three-wave longitudinal study with measuresadministered twice in one year and then once in the second year, so students weresampled twice in seventh or eighth grade and then once in either eighth grade orninth grade. An array of 13 different dependent outcome measures was used,including motivation, self-regulation, affect, and actual achievement. The analysesused a repeated measures ANOVA with the three waves comprising the withinsubjects factor and the two goals (mastery and performance-approach) as thebetween subjects factors. In the formal signicance tests of main effects andinteractions, there were signicant main effects of mastery and performance-approach goals, but most relevant to evidence for the interactive pattern, there weresignicant three-way mastery by performance by time interactions. The resultsshowed that the high mastery–high performance group had the highest levels of self-

efcacy, task value, risk-taking, cognitive strategy use, and self-regulation over time,independent of the main effects of goals. At the same time, the high mastery–highperformance group did not really differ in terms of negative affect or anxiety incomparison to the high mastery–low performance group. Finally, although thestatistical test for the three-way interaction for the dependent measure of achievement (as indexed by grade in math) was not signicant at conventionallevels, there was a trend ( po .08), suggesting that the high-high group had the highestlevel of achievement.

The role of context as a moderator of the relations between goals is highlighted inthe fourth interaction pattern suggested by Barron and Harackiewicz (2001) . In the

selective goal effect, they suggest that students would actively select which type of goal to adopt, depending on the affordances of the situation. For example, studentsmight adopt a mastery-approach goal in a small seminar or in a small group learningsituation with adaptive outcomes resulting. In contrast, in a large lecture course witha more competitive, norm-referenced grading system in place, the adoption of aperformance-approach goal might be more adaptive. In our own research, we havenot specically examined this type of selective goal process, but certainly in much of the research on college and university students, the context is a norm-referencedgrading context (e.g., Harackiewicz et al., 1998 ). There is certainly a need for moreresearch on this selective goal pattern, following the same individuals across different

contexts to examine their goal adoption and outcomes.As noted above, this selective goal effect could also be a function of normative

developmental changes in context. If many postsecondary, and even secondary

ARTICLE IN PRESS


8/12/2019 Conley 2003


8/12/2019 Conley 2003


future research consider the interplay between the characteristics of the learningenvironment and students’ perceptions of this context ( Anderman, Patrick, Hruda,& Linnenbrink, 2002 ; Turner et al., 2002 ). When considering classroom instructionand the many messages conveyed about the purposes for achievement behaviors, it isunclear how students synthesize these messages into a coherent perception of thegoal structure, how specic features emerge as salient, and by what means theseperceptions subsequently inuence goal adoption.

3.1. The processing of contextual information and goal adoption

While research has surveyed students’ perceptions of the classroom’s motivationalenvironment, few have attempted to illuminate those specic instructional practicesthat relate to these constructed perceptions. Emerging from a self-determinationtheory perspective, Deci, Schwartz, Sheinman and Ryan (1981) found that ateacher’s orientation toward supporting student autonomy had positive effects onstudents’ intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. Ryan and Grolnick (1986)extended this work by studying students’ perceptions of their learning environmentsalong autonomy or external control dimensions and the subsequent impact thatthese perceptions had on motivational outcomes (e.g., perceived academiccompetence, self-worth). Earlier research on achievement goals did look at variousclassroom instructional practices as encouraging either mastery or performancegoals ( Ames, 1992 ). Ames (1992) focused on six categories that contributed to the

classroom motivational environment (e.g., task, authority, recognition). However,few studies have subsequently examined specic instructional practices in relation tostudents’ perceptions of the classroom goal structure in the classroom setting(Anderman et al., 2002 ; Turner & Meyer, 1999 ).

There are few classroom-based studies that have considered those specic teacherbehaviors and classroom structures that are important in inuencing students’perceptions of the classroom goal structure. Meece (1991) used students’ self-reportmeasures to identify two classrooms that were perceived as high mastery and twoclassrooms that were perceived as low mastery, in terms of their goal structures.Incorporating observational data of these classrooms, she identied those specic

practices that differentiated these motivational environments. Teachers who createdhighly mastery-oriented classrooms adapted instruction to students’ level of understanding, expressed the value behind the material, supported students’autonomy, and provided opportunities for collaboration. Patrick, Anderman, Ryan,Edelin, and Midgley (2001) observed four classrooms that differed in the degree towhich students perceived an emphasis on mastery and performance goals, as assessedby survey measures (e.g., high mastery/high performance, high mastery/lowperformance, low mastery/high performance, low mastery/low performance).Findings revealed that in high mastery-oriented classrooms, teachers spoke aboutlearning as an active process, and expressed strong positive affect about learning and

positive expectations for students. In contrast, information about relativeperformance, grades, and assessments was increasingly salient in classrooms thatwere identied as highly performance-oriented.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


8/12/2019 Conley 2003


Turner et al.’s (2002) study extends this previous work by going beyond analysis of motivational practices that inuence students’ perceptions of the classroom goalstructure to analyze specic instructional strategies that inuence student percep-tions. In this study, students self-reported perceptions of the classroom goalstructure were used to select four classrooms: two classrooms perceived as highlymastery oriented and two perceived as low mastery. In the two high masteryclassrooms, teachers coupled holding students accountable for their understandingwith instructional and motivational support. Specically, these teachers offeredinstructional assistance by ensuring that students grasped concepts and proceduresbefore engaging in an activity, and by transferring responsibility gradually to thestudents as they became familiar with the material and skills. Also, the teachers inthese mastery-oriented classrooms provided motivational support by expressing thevalue of the material or the task, supporting students’ efforts, and providingopportunities for student collaboration.

The above studies highlight critical issues concerning the processes by whichstudent perceptions of the classroom goal structure emerge, to what extent theseperceptions remain stable starting at the beginning of the school year, or if they aremore malleable throughout the academic year. In addition, questions surfaceconcerning the interplay of teacher practices, the inuence these diverse instructionalpractices have on building a synthesized perception of the learning environment, andsubsequent personal achievement goal adoption. In reference to how students cometo synthesize the cues presented by instructional practices, Pintrich and Schunk

(2002) suggest that certain classroom dimensions may be more salient anddifferentially inuence students’ perceptions of the goal structure. For example, itis possible that, given a range of instructional practices that support a mastery-oriented classroom structure, the teacher also introduces performance goal practicesby making evaluation salient. This one cue that is associated with a performancegoal structure, due to its importance, could potentially override the cues of amastery-oriented learning environment for all students. Alternatively, there may beindividual differences that inuence students’ perceptions of the classroom context interms of which practices are perceived as salient and in how previous schoolexperiences or more stable personal goal orientations inuence these perceptions. As

achievement goal theory continues to inform educational practice it will becomecritical to investigate these issues.

3.2. The role of goals in collaborative learning groups

As educational standards and curricula are increasingly calling for students towork in groups, a second classroom context emerges as critical for empirical study.This emphasis on collaborative groups is based on research suggesting that, incomparison to those students who learn independently or in whole class instruction,learning in small group contexts encourages more adaptive educational outcomes

(Webb & Palincsar, 1996 ). However, within the eld of achievement motivation,there has been a neglect of the investigation of motivational processes within groupcontexts.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


8/12/2019 Conley 2003


However, in line with the above argument concerning the range of instructionalpractices that can potentially inuence students’ perceptions of the classroom goalstructure, small groups present a distinct subcontext within the classroom. Thegroup context raises the possibility that factors different from those found forstudents working independently or within a whole class setting inuence taskengagement. The small group may present additional and perhaps conicting cuesthat students must synthesize into their perceptions of the classroom goal structure,which would subsequently inuence personal goal adoption. While the groupliterature suggests that cooperative groups provide a ‘‘hook’’ for motivating learningbecause of the opportunity for students to work with peers, few researchers haveconsidered how group processes in combination with motivational processes mayplay out. Questions emerge concerning how this smaller context evokes goals thatare distinct from those encouraged within the classroom.

Specically, even if students share a perception of the teacher’s practices and theclassroom goal structure, the small group context may elicit different goals asstudents perceive it as a distinct subcontext. There are different pathways by which agroup’s interactions may encourage personal goal adoption. First, within thiscontext it is essential for students to collaborate in an effort toward an academic goaland this inherently introduces a comparative factor. Consider that, whencollaborating, students share ideas and responses. This activity requires thatstudents evaluate one another’s ideas and suggestions as they decide amongcompeting contributions. These group processes may encourage students to draw

comparisons and subsequently create some within-group competition as students tryto decide among competing ideas. It is the nature of the group’s interaction thatheightens the potential that students will evoke a personal goal specic to the groupcontext. Second, it may be that the classroom teacher explicitly provides strategiesand supports students’ work in groups. For example, teachers may encouragestudents to use one another as resources or provide strategies to assist students inarriving at a solution ( Meece, 1991 ; Turner et al., 2002 ). In this manner, specicteacher practices designed to support group work may inuence a sharedunderstanding of how the group should function and consequently encourage theendorsement of the same personal achievement goals.

Third, there are ways in which how the group collaborates and the unique impactof contributions made by each group member inuence personal goal adoption.While students assigned to work together may espouse different personal goals forclassroom work, through interactions within this group context a different groupstructure may be perceived, encouraging a different goal to be espoused. It may bethat when engaging in the task and working toward specic task goals, students’achievement goals may be altered through interactions with students with a distinctapproach toward engaging in the task. A fourth manner through which a student’spersonal goal may be inuenced within the group context is by having explicitconversations concerning how the group functions and interacts. For example, after

a day of less effective collaboration or upon noting some within-group competition,students may begin to discuss how to improve the group’s progress. By voicing theirfrustrations, students may come to an understanding that they hold the same task

ARTICLE IN PRESS


8/12/2019 Conley 2003


goals, and should therefore proceed in working on this group task. Similarly, byresolving group conict and agreeing on a shared goal for the learning activities,students may come to espouse similar personal goals within the group context.

Considering the potential interaction of motivational and group processes raises anumber of questions future research should address. It is important for research toexamine the mechanisms by which students come to endorse personal achievementgoals within the group context. As groups present a distinct subcontext, it isimportant to investigate how the classroom teacher might encourage adaptiveeducational outcomes, given the more proximal inuence of peers within groups.Future research should investigate specic instructional practices that could supporta high quality of group interaction.

Whether studying the classroom or small group context, it is critical that futureresearch employ methods that account for the social nature of learning. While thereare exceptions, motivation and group research has typically followed an individualdifference paradigm. Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) is one mode of statisticalanalysis that enables educational researchers to account for the nested quality, orinterdependent nature, of their data ( Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002 ). By partitioning thevariance in the dependent variable into between-group and within-group variance,researchers have the capability of predicting the characteristics of the group thatinuence a specic outcome, while still accounting for individual differences, as atypical regression model would allow. This analysis provides an interesting approachas we continue to investigate the impact specic instructional practices have on the

goals students endorse and how group processes inuence goal adoption.

4. Issues in the Measurement of Goals

Measurement issues are at the center of current debates in the achievement goalliterature about the role of multiple personal goals and the role of contextual factors.As in any eld, key theoretical questions also are related to the nature of the methodsused and the validity of the measurement procedures. Given the two main areas of research discussed on the denition of goals and the role of contextual factors, there

are important accompanying measurement issues. First, how many goal orientationsare there, and how should these goal orientations be conceptualized? Do studentsoperate according to the one goal that is most salient to them, or do we need to lookmore carefully at the dynamics involved when individuals adopt multiple goals?Second, what is the difference between goals that arise from the individual and goalsthat arise from the context? Further, is there an important distinction betweenperceived and actual contextual goals?

4.1. The measurement and denition of achievement goal orientations

The rst issue concerns the labeling and dening of achievement goal constructs.Conley and Pintrich (2004) , in a comprehensive analysis of more than 20 differentachievement goal instruments, raised a number of key issues in the measurement of

ARTICLE IN PRESS


8/12/2019 Conley 2003


goal orientation. The focus here is not the parsimony in labeling terminology calledfor by Murphy and Alexander (2000) , but rather consensus regarding the meaning of achievement goal constructs. Achievement goals are often dened differently acrossstudies (cf. Midgley et al., 2000 ; Nicholls, 1984 ), and even when the denitions aresimilar, the variables often are operationalized in very different ways. The key issueconcerns the fundamental nature of the achievement goal orientation construct. Is itthe reasons and purposes students pursue in achievement situations (e.g., goals of developing or demonstrating competence)? Or is it the criteria students use to judgesuccess (as in Nicholls’ item ‘‘I feel most successful if I show people I’m smart’’)? Orboth?

Most of the studies reviewed by Conley and Pintrich (2004) operationalizedachievement goal orientations as students’ reasons for engaging in achievement-related behaviors. However, Nicholls and colleagues ( Duda & Nicholls, 1992 ;Nicholls, Patashnick, & Nolen, 1985 ; Nolen & Haladyna, 1990 ) operationalizedachievement goals in terms of the standards individuals used to judge success (all of their items began with the stem, ‘‘I feel most successful if y ’’). Few studiesconceptualized achievement goals using both of these components, which is criticalgiven the earlier discussion about these two components separating goal orientationsfrom other goal constructs. If a goal orientation is dened in terms of both reasonsand standards, then it follows that measures of achievement goals should includeboth components.

Can a student have a goal of mastering the material, but then judge success

relative to others? Or might a student with the goal of demonstrating competence usepersonal improvement as a measure of progress toward that goal? All of the goalscales reviewed by Conley and Pintrich (2004) generated a single score for each goalorientation, implying that these two aspects of goal orientation always go hand-in-hand. It may be the case, however, that students dene success in a single way (e.g.,developing competence) but use both improvement and outperforming others asevidence of progress toward that goal. Alternatively, students might have goals of developing and demonstrating competence, but consider only evidence of relativeability when judging how successful they have been in their pursuits.

Research that separates the two components of goal orientations could tease apart

these multiple goal dynamics. For example, students might be given a series of scenarios in which their goals are to demonstrate or develop competence. For eachscenario, students would then be asked to describe the standards they would use to judge whether or not they were meeting that goal. This is just one of several waysresearch could examine this important link between reasons and standards.

As discussed earlier, some researchers predict two goal orientations (mastery andperformance), others predict three (mastery, performance-approach and perfor-mance-avoid) and a handful of researchers hypothesize that there are four differentgoal orientations (mastery-approach, mastery-avoid, performance-approach andperformance-avoid). Jagacinski and Duda (2001) tested a two-factor solution for the

Button, Mathieu, and Zajac (1996) , Midgley et al. (1996) and Nicholls et al. (1985)measures. The Nicholls instrument confounded approach and avoidance constructsin the performance scale and the resulting t indices for the two-factor model were

ARTICLE IN PRESS


8/12/2019 Conley 2003


only marginally acceptable ( Jagacinski & Duda, 2001 ). The Button et al. (1996) scalealso confounded performance-approach and performance-avoid goals and a two-factor model did not provide an acceptable t for the data ( Jagacinski & Duda,2001 ). The 1996 version of the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS)reviewed by Jagacinski and Duda (2001) did not have a performance-avoid scale, butthe performance scale excluded avoidance items. A two-factor solution (mastery andperformance-approach) provided an acceptable t for the data for the Midgley et al.(1996) measure. When approach and avoidance items are included in performancescales, clear mastery and performance factors do not emerge, suggesting that a two-goal model is not sufcient.

A good deal of support has been offered for a three-goal model. Elliot and Church(1997) used factor analysis to guide the construction of their 18-item achievementgoals questionnaire, which they used with college students. Smith, Duda, Allen, andHall (2002) tested this instrument with conrmatory factor analysis on data takenfrom a similar sample of students and found that 17 of the 18 items loaded on thehypothesized three factors. Middleton and Midgley (1997) conducted exploratoryand conrmatory factor analysis and found the hypothesized three factors in asample of middle school students. Smith et al. (2002) also tested this instrument andagain found that all but one of the items loaded on the hypothesized factor. Strongsupport has been obtained for the trichotomous framework in a number of otherstudies (e.g., Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996 ; Elliot & Thrash, 2002 ).

Fewer studies have been done using the 2 2 achievement goal framework, where

mastery goals are also separated into approach and avoid components. Elliot andMcGregor (2001) tested various models using conrmatory factor analysis andreported that the four-goal model t the data better than did other two- or three-goalmodels. In the same way that the performance-approach goal shared components of both mastery and performance-avoid goals, the mastery-avoid goal sharedcomponents of mastery-approach and performance-avoid goals. Further work isneeded testing three-goal models against four-goal models, but it seems clear thatboth t the data better than the two-goal model.

4.2. Measuring goals in context and the validity of contextual goal measures

Conley and Pintrich (2004) highlight a number of validity issues in themeasurement of contextual goals; two critical ones are discussed here. The rstissue for the validity of measures of contextual goal structures is the differencebetween actual and perceived classroom goals. Marshall and Weinstein (1986) foundconsiderable variability in students’ perceptions of the same classroom, andresearchers have argued that it is how each student interprets the classroomenvironment ( Ames & Archer, 1988 ), or the psychological environment of theclassroom ( Maehr & Midgley, 1991 ), that is predictive of students’ motivation,cognition, affect, and behavior. Questionnaire studies, following Ames and Archer

(1988) and Ames (1992) , have measured students’ perceptions of the classroomenvironment. Observations and experimental studies, on the other hand, emphasizeactual classroom structures that are believed to inuence motivation. Noting

ARTICLE IN PRESS


8/12/2019 Conley 2003


evaluation and recognition practices in the classroom, transcribing teachers’messages to students, and inducing goals in experimental settings all focus on whatis actually happening in the context, not on how students are giving meaning to thoseevents. It is important for research to consider differences between actual andperceived goals.

A second measurement issue in research on contextual goals is the way data areaggregated or reduced. Students’ scores are often aggregated and used tocharacterize classrooms. A common way of measuring classroom goal structures isby averaging across students’ classroom mastery and performance scores. Asdiscussed in the previous section, it is important to consider the degree of variabilityin students’ responses within a single classroom. Do students generally perceive thesame goal structures? Or do students in the same classroom report very differentperceptions? If data reduction obscures important differences between students, thevalidity of these methods is called into question. A related point is the way students’scores are used to characterize classrooms. Median splits are sometimes used tocharacterize classrooms as high or low in mastery or performance goals. Sometimesclassrooms are classied along a single dimension ( Meece, 1991 ), and other timesclassrooms are characterized along two dimensions (e.g., Patrick et al., 2001 ). Mostexperimental studies include a mastery-only condition and a performance-onlycondition, but very few have considered conditions in which both goals aresalient (for an exception, see Barron and Harackiewicz, 2001 ). Decisions aboutdesign and data reduction have important implications for theory, and future

work should address whether there can be multiple contextual goals. Thesemeasurement issues are critical to furthering our understanding of contextual goalinuences.

5. Summary

This article brings together current issues being explored by achievement goalresearchers and suggests future directions for research. In terms of the current workin the eld, we suggest that researchers strive to become more consistent in the

meanings they adopt and in their operationalization of achievement goals. Similarly,there is a call for research to examine whether the adoption of a three or four goalmodel is more appropriate, given the added approach-avoidance dimension.

Taking all the issues together, we suggest that considering how achievement goalsoperate in context poses new avenues for research. Specically, we propose thatgiven a teacher’s diverse set of instructional practices and the motivational climate of classrooms, students potentially adopt multiple goals. How students come toperceive classroom contexts and how individual differences and personal goalsinteract with contextual factors may impact student outcomes. It will become criticalto investigate the effects associated with adopting multiple goals, how varying levels

of these goals affect outcomes, and how goal endorsement varies at elementary,middle, high school, or university levels. As we begin to better answer thesequestions, we will not only contribute to motivational theory, we also should come

ARTICLE IN PRESS


8/12/2019 Conley 2003


to understand classrooms better and be able to provide more useful information toeducators to help them encourage adaptive patterns of motivation for all students.

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to our colleagues in the Motivation Research Group at Michiganfor very helpful comments on an earlier draft including Juliane Blazevski, MelissaGilbert, Stuart Karabenick, Christina Rhee, Peter Simmonds, Brian Sims, andAkane Zusho. Thanks also to the editor, George Sideridis, and two anonymousreviewers for their useful feedback that resulted in an improved manuscript. Of course, the views expressed here reect the authors’ and not necessarily these

individuals’.Paul R. Pintrich, our mentor and friend, passed away on July 12, 2003. We will

always value his contributions and his dedication, both to our scholarship and to theeld.

References

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms Goals structures and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology ,84, 261–271.

Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom Students’ learning strategies andmotivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology , 80, 260–267.

Anderman, E., & Maehr, M. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades. Review of Educational Research , 64, 287–309.

Anderman, L., Patrick, H., Hruda, L., & Linnenbrink, E. (2002). Observing classroom goal structures toclarify and expand goal theory. In C. Midgley’s (Ed.), Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptivelearning (pp. 243–278). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Austin, J., & Vancouver, J. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and content.Psychological Bulletin , 120, 338–375.

Barron, K., & Harackiewicz, J. (2001). Achievement goals and optimal motivation: Testing multiple goalmodels. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 80, 706–722.

Blumenfeld, P. (1992). The Task and the Teacher: Enhancing student thoughtfulness in science. Advancesin Research on Teaching , 3, 81–114.

Bouffard, T., Boisvert, J., Vezeau, C., & Larouche, C. (1995). The impact of goal orientation on self-regulation and performance among college students. British Journal of Educational Psychology , 65,317–329.

Button, S., Mathieu, J., & Zajac, D. (1996). Goal orientation in organizational research: A conceptual andempirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 67 (1), 26–48.

Conley, A., & Pintrich, P. (2004). Construct validity and the measurement of achievement goals.Manuscript submitted for publication, University of Michigan.

Deci, E., Schwartz, A., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. (1981). An instrument to assess adults’ orientationstoward control versus autonomy with children: Reections on intrinsic motivation and perceivedcompetence. Journal of Educational Psychology , 73, 642–650.

Duda, J., & Nicholls, J. (1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport. Journal of Educational Psychology , 84(3), 290–299.

Dweck, C., & Leggett, E. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


8/12/2019 Conley 2003


Elliot, A. (1997). Integrating the ‘‘classic’’ and ‘‘contemporary’’ approaches to achievement motivation: Ahierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. In M. Maehr, & P. Pintrich(Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement , Vol. 10 (pp. 143–179). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Elliot, A. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist ,34, 169–189.Elliot, A., & Church, M. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement

motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 72(1), 218–232.Elliot, A., & Harackiewicz, J. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic

motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology , 70(3),461–475.

Elliot, A., & McGregor, H. (2001). A 2 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 80, 501–519.

Elliot, A., & Thrash, T. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: Approach and avoidancetemperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 82(5), 804–818.

Harackiewicz, J., Barron, K., & Elliot, A. (1998). Rethinking achievement goals: When are they adaptivefor college students and why?. Educational Psychologist , 33, 1–21.

Harackiewicz, J., Barron, K., Pintrich, P., Elliot, A., & Thrash, T. (2002). Revision of achievement goaltheory: Necessary and illuminating. Journal of Educational Psychology , 94, 638–645.

Harackiewicz, J., & Sansone, C. (1991). Goals and intrinsic motivation: You can get there from here. InM. Maehr, & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Goals and self-regulation , Vol.7 (pp. 21–49). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Jagacinski, C., & Duda, J. (2001). A comparative analysis of contemporary achievement goal orientationmeasures. Educational & Psychological Measurement , 61(6), 1013–1039.

Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2002). Should childhood be a journey or a race? Response to Harackiewiczet al. (2002). Journal of Educational Psychology , 94, 646–648.

Maehr, M., & Midgley, C. (1991). Enhancing student motivation: A school-wide approach. Educational

Psychologist , 26 , 399–427.Marshall, H., & Weinstein, R. (1986). Classroom context of student-perceived differential teachertreatment. Journal of Educational Psychology , 78, 441–453.

Meece, J. (1991). The classroom context and students’ motivational goals. In P. Pintrich, & M. Maehr(Eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement , Vol. 7 (pp. 261–285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc.

Meece, J., & Holt, K. (1993). A pattern analysis of students’ achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology , 85, 582–590.

Middleton, M., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability. An under-exploredaspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology , 89, 710–718.

Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for what,for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of Educational Psychology , 93,77–86.

Midgley, C., Maehr, M., Hicks, L., Roeser, R., Urdan, T., Anderman, E., & Kaplan, A. (1996). Patternsof adaptive learning survey (PALS) , Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Leadership and Learning.

Midgley, C., Maehr, M., Hruda, L., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K., Gheen, M., Kaplan, A.,Kumar, R., Middleton, M., Nelson, J., Roeser, R., & Urdan, T. (2000). Manual for the patterns of adaptive learning scales : The University of Michigan.

Murphy, P., & Alexander, P. (2000). A motivated exploration of motivation terminology. ContemporaryEducational Psychology , 25, 3–53.

Nicholls, J. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice,and performance. Psychological Review , 91, 328–346.

Nicholls, J., Patashnick, M., & Nolen, S. (1985). Adolescents’ theories of education. Journal of Educational Psychology , 77 (6), 683–692.

Nolen, S., & Haladyna, T. (1990). Personal and environmental inuences on students’ beliefs abouteffective study strategies. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 15, 116–130.

Patrick, H., Anderman, L., Ryan, A., Edelin, K., & Midgley, C. (2001). Teachers’ communication of goalorientation in four fth-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal , 102, 35–58.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


8/12/2019 Conley 2003


Pintrich, P. (2000a). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation terminology, theory,and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 25, 92–104.

Pintrich, P. (2000b). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and

achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology , 92, 544–555.Pintrich, P. (2000c). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, &M. Zeidner (Eds.), The handbook of self-regulation: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 451–502).San Diego: Academic Press.

Pintrich, P., & Zusho, A. (2002). The development of academic self regulation: The role of cognitive andmotivational factors. In A. Wigeld, & J. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation(pp. 249–284). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Pintrich, P., & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the college classroom. InM. Maehr, & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Goals and self-regulatory processes , Vol. 7 (pp. 371–402). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Pintrich, P., & Schunk, D. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research and applications , UpperSaddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Merrill.

Pintrich, P., Zusho, A., Schiefele, U., & Pekrun, R. (2001). Goal orientation and self-regulated learning inthe college classroom: A cross-cultural comparison. In F. Salili, C. -Y. Chiu, & Y. -Y. Hong (Eds.),Student motivation: The culture and context of learning (pp. 149–169). New York: Plenum.

Raudenbush, S., & Bryk, A. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods(2nd ed), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Ryan, R., & Grolnick, W. (1986). Origins and pawns in the classroom: Self-report and projectiveassessments of individual differences in children’s perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 50, 550–558.

Skaalvik, E. (1997). Self-enhancing and self-defeating ego orientation: Relations with task avoidanceorientation, achievement, self-perceptions, and anxiety. Journal of Educational Psychology , 89, 71–81.

Smith, M., Duda, J., Allen, J., & Hall, H. (2002). Contemporary measures of approach and avoidance goalorientations: Similarities and differences. British Journal of Educational Psychology , 72, 155–190.

Thrash, T., & Elliot, A. (2001). Delimiting and integrating achievement motive and goal constructs. In A.Efklides, J. Kuhl, & M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Trends and prospects in motivation research . Boston: Kluwer.

Turner, J., & Meyer, D. (1999). Integrating Classroom Context into Motivation Theory and Research:Rationales, methods and implications. Advances in Motivation and Achievement , 11, 87–121.

Turner, J., Midgley, C., Meyer, D., Gheen, M., Anderman, E., Kang, Y., & Patrick, H. (2002). TheClassroom Environment and Students’ Reports of Avoidance Strategies in Mathematics: Amultimethod study. Journal of Educational Psychology , 84, 88–106.

Urdan, T. (1997). Achievement goal theory: Past results, future directions. In M. Maehr, & P. Pintrich(Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement , Vol. 10 (pp. 99–141). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Webb, N., & Palincsar, A. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. Berliner, & R. Calfee (Eds.),Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 841–873).

Wentzel, K. (2000). What is it that I’m trying to achieve? Classroom goals from a content perspective.Contemporary Educational Psychology , 25, 105–115.

Wolters, C., Yu, S., & Pintrich, P. (1996). The relation between goal orientation and students’motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences , 8, 211–238.

Zusho, A., Pintrich, P., & Schnabel, K. (2002). Motives, goals, and self-regulation on a mathematicsachievement task. Submitted for publication.

Zusho, A., Pintrich, P., & Schnabel, K. (2003). Skill and will: The role of motivation and cognition in thelearning of college chemistry. International Journal of Science Education , 25(9), 1081–1094.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


Documents

Conley 2003