-
fng
ne
ster
15
reedem
and Lens (1985) state. For other students, the future hardly
2000). Nevertheless, time perspective in other life domains
positively or negatively (Peetsma, 2000). Development offuture
time perspective in different life domains and their
Education, 2005). Better understanding of both the
interrela-tions between and development of these students future
timeperspective in different life domains, on the one hand, and
thedevelopment of their investment in learning and
academicachievement, on the other, could help prevent severe
decrease
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 31 20 5251340.E-mail addresses:
[email protected] (T. Peetsma), H.vanderveen@
uva.nl (I. van der Veen).1 (Future) time perspective, and
(future) time orientation are usually used
interchangeably in the literature.
Learning and Instruction 21 (influences their behaviour. They
live mainly in the present.The time dimension of goals has been
considered for a longtime a motivator or motivational determinant
in addition tolearning motivators, such as students goal
orientations, self-efficacy, and affections or emotions (Peetsma,
Hascher, Vander Veen, & Roede, 2005). Time perspective1 is
conceptual-ized differently by different researchers (Seijts,
1998), buttime perspective, especially in school and professional
career,has proved in general to be a good predictor of students
effects on students investment in learning and
academicachievement have rarely been studied longitudinally,
whereasa decrease in school motivation from the beginning
ofsecondary education is a well-known phenomenon in educa-tional
research. This decrease has been found in different typesof school
and in various countries (Peetsma et al., 2005).Especially for
students from the lowest track of secondaryeducation, motivation
for school is often quite low, and thepercentage of early school
leavers is about three times higherthan in higher secondary school
tracks (Dutch Inspectorate offor their future and their appraisal
of future goals makes themput effort into the attainment of their
future goals, as Nuttinalso seems to predict students learning
behaviour either
Some students foresee the consequences of their
behaviourstudents in the first and 584 in the second year of the
lower vocational education in the Netherlands who completed
self-report measures at fourdifferent time points during a school
year. The data were analysed using multivariate latent growth curve
modelling. Future time perspectiveinfluenced the development of
academic achievement via the growth of investment in learning.
Long-term time perspective in leisure time hada negative effect on
the development of investment in learning, whereas the effects of
the long-term time perspective in school and professionalcareer, as
well as in social relations, were positive. 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All
rights reserved.
Keywords: Future time perspective; Motivation; Academic
achievement; Secondary education; Investment in learning
1. Introduction learning behaviour and academic achievement
(Husman &Lens, 1999; Lens, Simons, & Dewitte, 2001;
Peetsma,Relations between the development odomains, investment in
learni
Thea Peetsma*, I
Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, University of Am
Received 8 December 2009; revised
Abstract
Relations between the development of future time perspectives in
thleisure time) and changes in students investment in learning and
aca0959-4752/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights
reserved.doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.08.001future time
perspective in three life, and academic achievement
ke van der Veen
dam, P.O. Box 94208, 1090 GE Amsterdam, The Netherlands
July 2010; accepted 9 August 2010
life domains (i.e., school and professional career, social
relations, andic achievement were examined in this study.
Participants were 584
2011) 481e494www.elsevier.com/locate/learninstruc
-
n theo be
a better predictor of school investment than perceived
instru-
were found to be important in the time perspectives of
studentsandocial
relations, and (d) leisure (or free) time.
by motivators or motivational determinants. An example ofhr
&
Braskamp, 1986). The school investment concept as used by
ng amentality operationalized as perceived usefulness and
necessityof school for the future (Peetsma, 1992). By combining
affect,cognition, and behavioural intentions, time perspective
repre-toward the goal or life domain. Indeed, time perspective
ilife domain school and professional career has proved tin their
investment in learning. This seems to be important asinterventions
based on Future Time Perspective theory havebeen fruitful (Peetsma
& Van der Veen, 2009).
1.1. The conceptualization of future time perspective
Future time perspective is generally described as a
represen-tation or conceptualization of a particular life domain in
terms oftime. Lens (1986) defined this time perspective as a
cogniti-veemotivational concept. It is characterized by extension
andvalence (see, e.g., Gjesme, 1996; Husman & Lens,
1999).Extension indicates the degree of remoteness of the
representa-tion in time. For students, the time after finishing
school andthe current school year seems to be meaningful terms in
time.The valence of the future time perspective indicates the
valueascribed to a life domain in the future. The appreciation
expressedby a personwith respect to a certain life domain in the
future playsan essential role in defining the concept of future
time perspectiveas a motivational variable.
Defined like this, future time perspective is mainly a
cognitiveconstruct and it is often used like this. Zimbardo andBoyd
(1999)regarded time perspective as cognitive in nature, although
situa-tionally determined. They see time perspective as a
globalperspective to the future and the presentdthe latter
beingdistinguished to present hedonistic and present
fatalisticperspective. According to Zimbardo and Boyd (1999), the
timeperspective construct is at the basis of achievement,
goal-setting,risk-taking, and other behaviours. Nurmi (1989)
described futuretime orientation in terms of three basic processes,
namely moti-vation, planning and evaluation. Motivation refers here
to whatinterests people have in the future, planning refers to how
peopleplan the realization of their interests, and evaluation
refers to theextent to which people expect their interests to be
realized.Finally, Husman (1998) defined future time perspective as
a kindof instrumentality for reaching a goal in the future.
Peetsma (1985, 2000) included an affective component inthe
concept of time perspective. She conceptualized timeperspective in
terms of three components (i.e., affect, cognition,and behavioural
intention) aimed at a certain life domain.Cognition consists of
ideas or expectations with regard to thefuture, and of knowledge of
social realities. Affect is conceivedof as an expression of feeling
or general affect towardsa particular life domain in the future,
whereas the targetedbehaviour in the future as behavioural
intention. Defined likethis, time perspective represents something
broader than mereinstrumentality, which is mainly cognitive in
nature; timeperspective taps the degree to which students value a
goal or lifedomain in the present or in the future, intend to reach
a goal ina certain life domain, and have specific feelings and
emotions
482 T. Peetsma, I. van der Veen / Learnisents students
internalization of and determination to reachvalued goals in the
present or in the future. Indeed, in a recentRoede (1989) in
motivation studies in the Netherlandsincluded the onset of learning
behaviour and the intensity andpersistence of the behaviour.
Therefore, school investment (orinvestment in learning) can be seen
as a component of self-regulated learning (Zimmerman, 2000).
Bembenutty andKarabenick (2004) embedded future time perspective
withina self-regulated learning framework. In their view, future
timeperspective is a component of students toolkits for learning
tocomplete academic tasks over time.
1.3. Time perspective in different life domains andlearning
behaviour
Different explanations have been offered for the well-known
decline in motivation, investment in learning, andacademic
achievement in secondary school, starting after thetransition from
primary school. These explanations are notmutually exclusive.
Development of time perspective indifferent life domains has been
associated to the developmentof learning behaviour. In a
cross-sectional study shifts werefound in the relevance of life
domains of students from alllearning behaviour is personal
investment in school (MaeTime perspective is a perception of time
rather than the actualphysical passage of time (Gjesme, 1996;
Husman, 1998).However, the capacity to ascribe high value to
long-term goals bypeoplewith a long-term time perspective (i.e.,
the value aspect oftime perspective as a motivational variable; De
Volder & Lens,1982) seemed to have effect only in the case of
intermediatedistances to a goal and not for long-term goals (e.g.,
10e20 yearsfrom now) or for very short-term ones, like one week
from now(Zhang, Karabenick, Maruno, & Lauermann, 2011).
1.2. Time perspective and learning behaviour
The time dimension is important for learning motivationbecause
learning usually consists of successive steps whichhave
implications for the future; it is a contingent path of
tasks(Raynor & Entin, 1983). In motivation research,
motivatorslike time perspective are differentiated from the
resultingmotivated learning behaviour. Learning behaviour, as well
asacademic achievement, is supposed to be positively influencedin
the first years of secondary education: (a) schoolprofessional
career, (b) personal development, (c) sstudy, combining future time
perspective with self-determina-tion theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000)
future time perspective wasfound to be positively associated with
identified regulation (DeBilde, Vansteenkiste, & Lens,
2011).
This conceptualization of time perspective by Peetsma(1985,
2000) allows also the differentiation between lifedomains. In a
validity study of the questionnaire for timeperspectives (Peetsma,
1985) the following four life domains
nd Instruction 21 (2011) 481e494tracks of secondary education
(Peetsma, 1997). Students timeperspective in school and
professional career became less
-
2000). Attaching great importance to leisure time in
thesent.
Both short- and long-term time perspectives in social
relations
perspectives are interrelated. In a study of the two timeeen
short-term and long-term perspectives in the same domain
were
time perspective are cross-sectional (Peetsma, 1997).
Longi-tudinal or process data are needed to fully understand
thedevelopment and motivational role of time
perspective,particularly as regards school.
evel-emic
483ng and Instruction 21 (2011) 481e494found in the first four
years of all types of secondary education intheNetherlands
(Peetsma, 1992). It seems that secondary schoolstudents did not
differentiate very strongly between socialrelations now this year
and later after this school. This alsoseems to hold for school
study, professional career, and forleisure time. For leisure time
the relation between the two timeperspectives was lowest, which
suggests that the two dimen-sions would be studied
independently.
1.5. Development of time perspective
According to descriptions of developmental stages(Erikson, 1968;
Piaget, 1955), time perspective develops fromabout 11 years on.
Before that age, time perspective is char-acterized more or less by
fantasy. In the life period from 12 to18 years, fantasy is driven
back by a sense of reality. Therelatively late development of time
perspective makes it aninteresting variable for studies of
motivation in secondaryeducation.
Time perspective reflects a general person disposition.
Forinstance, Peetsma (1992) found that intracorrelations
ofperspectives in different life domains positive relations betwand
the short-term time perspective in leisure time weremarginally
related to investment in learning. Leisure in theshort term might
be something everybody needs and this doesnot necessarily compete
with working at school. Relationsbetween time perspective and
investment in learning havebeen studied often, but not the
longitudinal development ofdifferent time perspectives, which could
be important for theireffects on self-regulated learning and
academic achievement.
1.4. Dimensions of time perspective
There has been a debate on the dimensionality of
timeperspective. Some consider it one-dimensional, that is,
peoplevary along a continuum from short-term or present-oriented
tolong-term or future-oriented (Strathman, Gleicher, Boninger,
&Edwards, 1994), while others claim two orthogonal
dimensionsfor time perspective (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999). This
last viewhas been largely empirically confirmed. However, the two
timelong-term seems to undermine school effort in the preimportant
over time, whereas perspectives in other domains oflife, such as
leisure time or social relations, grew in impor-tance or stayed
stable during the secondary school period.Possibly this causes a
motivation conflict, as Hofer et al.(2007, 2010), Hofer, Kuhnle,
Kilian, Marta, and Fries (2011)found between school and leisure
activities of students.
Although students time perspective in school and profes-sional
career has been shown to correlate positively withinvestment in
learning, the long-term time perspective inleisure time has been
found to correlate negatively (Peetsma,
T. Peetsma, I. van der Veen / Learnimeasures of time perspective
in different life domains rangedfrom .46 to .60 over a year.
However, most of the studies on2 VMBO: Voorbereidend Middelbaar
Beroepsonderwijs [Preparatory
Secondary Vocational Education].3 HAVO: Hoger Algemeen Vormend
Onderwijs [Senior General Secondary
Education].leisure time, was expected to positively influence
the dopment of both the investment in learning and acad1.6. The
present study e hypotheses
The present study focused on students in the lowest track
ofsecondary school. In the Netherlands, at the age of about 12after
finishing primary school, children can choose betweenthree
different types of secondary education. The mostessential choice is
between a four-year vocational education(VMBO)2 including also a
general education preparing forintermediate vocational education,
and two types of generalsecondary education, namely HAVO3, and
VWO4. These twotypes of general secondary education differ in
length. Theyalso differ from each other in terms of complexity and
func-tion. Specifically, VWO (6 years) is intended to
preparestudents for university education; HAVO (5 years) is
intendedto prepare students to attend institutions of higher
educationother than universities (higher professional education).
In thepresent study, the focus was on students in the lowest track
ofsecondary education because, as was described earlier in
theintroduction, the motivation for learning and the school
careerof these students is least favourable.
The aim of the present study was to collect process data onthe
development of time perspective in three different lifedomains,
namely school and professional career, social rela-tions, and
leisure time. There were four measurement points fortime
perspectives as well as for investment in learning, andacademic
achievement. Besides the development of timeperspectives, the
relations between the development of timeperspectiveswith the
development of investment in learning andacademic achievement were
also analysed. The specific vari-ables of the study were long-term
time perspective in school andprofessional career, long-term time
perspective in social rela-tions, long-term time perspective in
leisure time, short-termtime perspective in leisure time,
investment in learning, andacademic achievement. The hypotheses
were as follows.
A negative development of the long-term time perspectivein
school and professional career, investment in learning, andacademic
achievement across the four measurement timepoints within a year
was expected but not of the developmentof the long-term perspective
in social relations. On thecontrary, a positive development of
long-term time and short-term perspective in leisure time was
expected (Hypothesis 1).
Development of long-term time perspective in school
andprofessional career, unlike the long-term time perspective in4
VWO: Voorbereidend Wetenschappelijk Onderwijs [Pre-university
Education].
-
time perspectives and did not include the short-term
perspec-
ng a2. Method
2.1. Design e participants
Schools for lower vocational education (i.e., VMBO) fromall over
the Netherlands were recruited to participate in thestudy with
their first and second year classes. They receiveda letter
concerning the research study and three-quarters of theschools did
participate, schools in all fields of vocations suchas technique,
agriculture, administration, and media.
A self-report questionnaire on time perspective in schooland
professional career, social relations, and leisure time anda scale
on investment in learning were administered four timesduring
regular class time, that is, the first shortly after thestudents
started the first or second year, that is, in September/October
2004, the second in February/March, the third in May/June, and the
fourth in September/October 2005 (shortly afterthe students started
the next year). Of the whole sample, 72%participated in all four
measurement points, whereas 21%participated in three, 4% in two,
and 3% in one measurementpoint. It took the students 30e40 min to
fill in the question-naire and the scale.
Participants in the study were 1168 students; 584 in the
firstyear and 584 in the second year of VMBO. Of them 642 (55%)were
boys and 526 (45%) girls. The students came from 10schools,
including the biggest cities in the country, and 54classes (on
average 5.4 classes per school). At the firstmeasurement, the
first-year students were on average 12 yearstives in this
hypothesis.achievement. Small effects of the development of
long-termtime perspective in social relations on the development
ofinvestment in learning and academic achievement wereexpected. The
same regards the development of short-termtime perspective in
leisure time (Hypothesis 2).
As regards the initial levels of the variables mentionedabove,
the initial level of long-term time perspective in schooland
professional career as well as of long-term timeperspective in
leisure time were expected to strongly correlatepositively and
negatively, respectively, with the initial level ofinvestment and
academic achievement. For the long-term timeperspective in social
relations and the short-term perspectivein leisure time, rather
small correlations, if any, with the initialvalues of investment in
learning and academic achievementwere expected (Hypothesis 3).
As the long-term time perspective in leisure time seems
toparticularly compete with time perspective in school and
inprofessional career, a negative relationship of the developmentof
the long-term time perspective in leisure time with thedevelopment
of the time perspective in school and profes-sional career was
expected (Hypothesis 4). As the shifts intime perspective were most
obvious for both of these timeperspectives, combined with their
observed strongest relationswith investment in learning, we focused
on these long-term
484 T. Peetsma, I. van der Veen / Learniold and the second year
students 13 years old. Studentssocioeconomic background was
assessed with their parentscomprised seven items tapping (a) the
onset of studentslearning behaviour; example item is It takes a lot
of effort to goto school; (b) the students degree of intensity in
learning;example item is At school I listen carefully to the
explanation ofthe teacher; and (c) the students persistence in
learning;education. Most of the students in the study (74%) had
parentswho had attended lower to intermediate vocational
education.Only 7% of the students had parents with higher
education,whereas 19% did not provide the relevant information.
2.2. Instruments
2.2.1. Time perspective in school and professional career,social
relations, and leisure time
Time perspective was assessed with four scales from theTime
Perspective Questionnaire (TPQ; Peetsma, 1985, 1992;Stouthard &
Peetsma, 1999). Scales for long-term timeperspective in school and
professional career, social relations,and leisure time, as well as
a scale for short-term timeperspective in leisure time were used in
the present study. Theitems of the four scales of TPQ (see Appendix
A) for the threedifferent life domains (i.e., school and
professional career,social relations, and leisure time) in the
short- and long-termtime (short: now, this school year; long:
later, the time afterfinishing this school) assessed the
attitudinal componentscognition, affect, and behaviour intentions
towards particularmanifestations of the three life domains. The
components weresystematically alternated by using a facet-like
approach(Peetsma, 1985, 1992; Stouthard & Peetsma, 1999). The
facetapproach provides a general framework for test
construction(Canter, 1985). Using a facet approach, each item of a
scaleincludes all the facets, here for a questionnaire on
timeperspective each item includes a life domain, a term of
time,and an attitudinal component. The three life domains, twoterms
of time and three attitudinal components were alternatedin order to
create items for every combination. The items witha negative
appreciation of the perspective were recodedafterwards.
All items of the questionnaire were rated on a
Likert-typeresponse scale ranging from 1 (not at all agree) to
5(completely agree). There were seven items in the Long-TermTime
Perspective in School and Professional Career scale andthe mean
reliability in the four measurement points wasCronbachs a .66. The
Long-Term Time Perspective inSocial Relations comprised six items
and the mean reliabilityin the four measurement points was
Cronbachs a .66. TheLong-Term Time Perspective in Leisure Time
comprised 6items and the mean reliability in the four measurement
pointswas Cronbachs a .71. The Short-Term Time Perspective
inLeisure Time comprised 6 items and the mean reliability in
thefour measurement points was Cronbachs a .80.
2.2.2. Investment in learningInvestment in learning was assessed
with a scale from the
School Investment Questionnaire (Roede, 1989). The scale
nd Instruction 21 (2011) 481e494example item is At school, I
keepmy attention to learning. Thenegative items were recoded in
scoring. All items of the scale
-
were rated on a Likert-type response scale ranging from 1(hardly
ever/never) to 5 (almost always/always). Mean reli-ability in the
four measurement points was Cronbachs a .67.
2.2.3. Academic achievementAcademic achievement was measured
with average grades
(GPA) on Dutch language, English language and mathematics.The
grades were derived from students report cards whichwere provided
from their schools. The grades corresponded tothe four measurement
points. The grades ranged from 1(lowest) to 10 (highest).
2.3. Data analysis
Another example is the effect of gender on the latent
variables,that is, the correlation indicates to what extent girls
havedifferent starting values and growth rates compared to
boys.
Students with missing data are often removed from theanalysis
(listwise deletion). This practice has been criticisedextensively
(Little & Rubin, 1987, 1989). In the present studyall students
were included in the analysis. Missing values wereestimated by
full-information maximum likelihood estimation(FIML). The FIML
estimation is based on the assumption thatmissing values are
missing at random (MAR), which assumesthat missing values can be
predicted from the available data.
485T. Peetsma, I. van der Veen / Learning and Instruction 21
(2011) 481e494Fig. 1. Linear growth model for investment in
learning. The symbols i_iv and
s_iv indicate the initial level (intercept) and rate of growth
(slope), respec-
tively. The symbols iv1eiv4 indicate the four measurements of
investment inDevelopment of time perspective in the three
domains(school and professional career, social relations and
leisuretime) over time (four measurement points) as well as
theirassociations with the development of investment in learningand
academic achievement were investigated with multivariateLatent
Growth Curve Analysis (LGCA), using Mplus (Muthen& Muthen,
2004). The advantage of LGCA is that each indi-viduals growth
pattern is represented by a unique curve.Participants are allowed
to have different initial values (atMeasurement 1) and to have
different growth rates. The initialvalues and growth rates are
treated as latent variables in theanalysis. This type of analysis
can be performed using struc-tural equation modelling programs, in
our case Mplus. Ingraphical presentations of the path diagrams,
squares are usedto indicate observed variables and circles (or
ellipses) thelatent variables. As an example, Fig. 1 shows a growth
modelfor the development of investment in learning. As the
timebetween each measurement was not exactly the same, time
asmonths was included, that is, 0 months for Measurement 1(m1), 5
months for Measurement 2 (m2), 8 months forMeasurement 3(m3), and
12 months for Measurement 4 (m4).
The advantage of including the initial level (intercept)
andgrowth rate (slope) as latent variables is that these
variablescan be correlated to each other and to other (latent and
control)variables. For instance, a negative correlation between
theinitial level and the rate of growth indicates that a lower
initiallevel corresponds to a higher growth rate and vice
versa.learning, the first after 1 month, the second after 5 months,
the third after 8
months, and the fourth after 12 months.Removing all cases with
missing values (listwise deletion) isbased on the more strict
assumption that the missing values arecompletely at random
(MCAR).
Preferably, all time perspectives should be included in
onemodel; but for this a larger number of students would
benecessary. Therefore, we performed three analyses, that is,
onefor each life domain separately. For leisure time the data of
theshort-term and long-term perspectives were included in
oneanalysis. For each life domain an overall model was
specified,including, for each of the variables (i.e., time
perspective,investment in learning, and academic achievement) the
latentvariables initial level and growth rate. Furthermore,
weanalysed whether gender (0 boy, 1 girl) and year (Year1 1, Year 2
0) had an effect on the initial level and growthrate of the six
variables. In estimating each model, the nestingof the data
(students within classes) was taken into account. Inconstructing
each model, we made the path assumptionsshown in Fig. 2.
Specifically, it was assumed that the time perspective
wouldinfluence students investment in learning, which would inturn
influence their academic achievement. Furthermore it wasassumed
that there might be a direct effect of the timeperspective on
academic achievement.
A full model was initially developed in each case.
Rela-tionships between variables were omitted if including them
didnot mean a significant improvement in the fit of the model.The
chosen level of significance in the present study wasp < .05.
Models were compared with each other using the chi-square
difference test. Furthermore, if there was significantimprovement
in the fit of the model the correlation betweenthe two latent
variables was included. Next, significant effectsof year (Year 1 1,
Year 2 0) and gender (0 boy,1 girl) on the latent variables were
included.
Fig. 2. Presentation of the general assumptions on the relations
between thevariables time perspective, investment in learning, and
academic achievement
(i.e., grade point average; GPA).
-
Four different measures of fit are presented, namely chi-square,
the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA),the Tucker
Lewis coefficient (TLI), and the comparative fitindex (CFI).
Multiple indices were used because the chi-squaretest depends on
sample size and is not very accurate (Browne &Cudeck, 1993). An
RMSEAvalue of about .05 or less indicatesa close fit of the model
in relation to the degrees of freedom. TheTLI and CFI values should
be higher than .90; values close to 1indicate a very good fit. By
comparing how much variance ininvestment in learning and academic
achievement is explainedby the time perspective in the three life
domains, it can bedetermined which of the time perspectives is most
important inexplaining differences in the development of investment
inlearning and academic achievement. However, as the three
lifedomains could not be included in the analyses
together,important information on overlap in explained variances
ismissing. To solve this, the predicted values of the latent
vari-ables for the three life domainswere saved and
correlationswerecalculated between these variables.
3. Results
investigated in terms of months corresponding to the
fourmeasurement points. In the table, the growth rate over a
year(12 months) is also presented for better appreciation of
theoverall growth rate. All mentioned initial levels and
growthrates in the table have significant standard deviations,
whichmeans that indeed the individual students differ in initial
levelsand growth rates.
The initial values of all measures were rather high. Overall,the
students school grades, long-term time perspectives inschool and
professional career, as well as in social relationsand investment
in learning decreased over the school year,whereas the short- and
long-term time perspective in leisuretime increased over the school
year. The results are in line withHypothesis 1 regarding
development of time perspectives inschool and professional career
and in leisure time, and thedevelopment of investment in learning
and academicachievement. Only the development of long-term
timeperspective in social relations did not support Hypothesis 1.We
did not expect a negative development, albeit small, in thistime
perspective. The initial value of the time perspective insocial
relations proved to be relatively high.
ghts,
al c
486 T. Peetsma, I. van der Veen / Learning and Instruction 21
(2011) 481e494The three estimated models are shown in Figs. 3, 4
and 5.For easy reference, effects for year and gender were not
drawnin the figures. Effects of gender were only significant for
thelong-term time perspective in social relations. All processes
inthe models are represented by linear growth curves. Themodels did
not deviate much from our general assumptions inFig. 2. All three
models fit the data well.
Before discussing the three models, first the mean initiallevel
and average growth rate for the six latent variables arepresented
in Table 1. In the analysis, the growth rate was
Fig. 3. Estimated model for long-term time perspective in school
and profession(intercept) and rate of growth (slope), respectively;
the numbers in the observed va
time perspective in school and professional career; inv
investment in learning;areer. In latent variables (in circles) the
symbols i_ and s_ indicate initial levelare shown in Table 2. All
reported regression wei3.1. Time perspective in school and
professional career
The model testing the interrelations between long-termtime
perspective in school and professional career, investmentin
learning, and academic achievement (i.e., GPA) fitted thedata well,
c2 (66, N 1168) 123.7, p < .001,RMSEA .03, CFI .98 and TLI .98
(see Fig. 3). Thestandardized regression weights and the
correlations betweenthe different latent variables and the control
variable yearriables (in squares) indicate the four measurement
points; ftpspl long-termGPA grade point average.
-
Fig. 4. Estimated model for long-term time perspective in social
relations. In latent variables (in circles) the symbols i_ and s_
indicate initial level (intercept) and
rate of growth (slope), respectively; the numbers in the
observed variables (in squares) indicate the four measurement
points; ftpsrl long-term time perspective insocial relations; inv
investment in learning; GPA grade point average.
Fig. 5. Estimated model for short- and long-term time
perspective in leisure time. In latent variables (in circles) the
symbols i_ and s_ indicate initial level
(intercept) and rate of growth (slope), respectively; the
numbers in the observed variables (in squares) indicate the four
measurements points; ftpll long-term timeperspective on leisure
time; ftpls short-term time perspective in leisure time; inv
investment in learning; GPA grade point average.
487T. Peetsma, I. van der Veen / Learning and Instruction 21
(2011) 481e494
-
including those in Tables 3 and 4, are significant as
onlysignificant associations were included in the model.
Themodel did not deviatemuch from the general assumptionsof the
present study as depicted in Fig. 2. What is worth noting is
indeed invest more in learning initially and developed
theirinvestment in learning more strongly; they also had
betteracademic achievement initially, and had a more
positivedevelopment of their academic achievement. However, the
theong-
Table 1
Mean initial level and mean growth rate for the six latent
variables, including standard deviations.
Initial value Growth rate per
month
Growth rate per year
M SD M SD M SD
Long-term time perspective in school and professional career 4.1
.4 .00 .02 .04 .29Long-term time perspective in social relations
4.4 .3 .01 .02 .12 .19Short-term time perspective in leisure time
4.2 .4 .00 .02 .05 .28
Long-term time perspective in leisure time 3.6 .5 .02 .03 .24
.35
Investment in learning 3.9 .7 .02 .01 .24 .16Academic
achievement 7.0 .4 .02 .01 .24 .17Academic achievement is scaled
from 1 to 10 ( highest) and the others from 1 to 5 ( highest).
m ti
488 T. Peetsma, I. van der Veen / Learning and Instruction 21
(2011) 481e494that the long-term time perspective in school and
professionalcareer did not have a significant direct effect on
academicachievement (i.e., GPA). Furthermore, the model
includedcorrelations between the second and third measurements of
theobserved variables. Not including these correlations resulted
ina decrease in model fit. The reason for the presence of
thesecorrelations is probably that, contrary to the first and
fourthmeasurements, the second and third measurements took
placewithin the same school year with a difference of only
threemonths. The first and fourth measurements took place
whenstudents had just started a new school year,with probable
changesin the school environment that affected their responses.
Regarding academic achievement, 20% of the variance in
theinitial level of academic achievementwas explained by the
othervariables in the model, as was 41% of the variance in the
growthrate of this variable. The long-term time perspective in
schooland professional career explained 43% of the variance of
theinitial level of investment in learning and 60% of the variance
inthe growth rate of this variable. Students with more
positiveinitial long-term time perspective in school and
professionalcareer or more positive development of this time
perspective did
Table 2
Standardized regression weights and correlations in the model
for the long-terInitial value of academic achievement
-
Table 3
Standardized regression weights and correlations in the model
for the long-term time perspective in social relations.
beta r
Initial value of academic achievement
-
as depicted in Fig. 2 and to what was found in the previous
twoodel
was more complex. Only the growth of the long- and short-
Regarding the long-term time perspective in leisure time,e
ofative
effect of the growth rate of the long-term time perspective
on
ng aterm time perspective in leisure time did not have a
directeffect on the growth of academic achievement (GPA). Unlikethe
previous models, the initial levels of both time perspectivesin
leisure time predicted the initial level of academicachievement.
Investment in learning (both the initial level andgrowth) predicted
the respective initial level and growth ofacademic achievement.
Furthermore, in three cases, correla-tions between the second and
third measurements of observedvariables were estimated. Not
including these correlationsresulted in a decrease in model
fit.
Correlations between the latent variables initial level
andgrowth of the long-term time perspective in leisure time
wereestimated. Not including these correlations also resulted ina
decrease in model fit. Regarding the academic achievement(i.e.,
GPA), 20% of the variance of the initial level of
academicachievement was explained, as was 47% of the variance in
thegrowth rate of this variable by the other variables in the
model.Furthermore, the other variables in the model explained 9%
ofthe variance in the initial level of investment in learning
and46% of the variance in the growth rate of this variable.models
(see Figs. 3 and 4) the picture revealed in this mtime perspective
in social relations had positive effects on theinitial level and
growth of investment in learning. Hypotheses2 and 3 predicted no
such effect, or only a small effect.Contrary to Hypothesis 2,
especially the growth of the long-term time perspective in social
relations had a quite strongpositive effect (.65) on the
development of investment inlearning. Moreover, for girls, both the
initial level and thedevelopment of long-term time perspective in
social relationshad more positive effects on the investment in
learning thanfor boys. Girls also had a higher initial level of
investment inlearning and more positive development of investment
inlearning than boys. Finally, the initial level of
first-yearstudents investment in learning was higher than that of
thesecond-year students. For the first-year students the
develop-ment of investment in learning was lower than for the
second-year students. This finding is comparable to what was found
inthe model with the long-term time perspective in school
andprofessional career. For the first-year students, the
develop-ment of the long-term time perspective in social relations
washigher than for second-year students.
3.3. Time perspectives in leisure time
The model for time perspectives (i.e., long-term and short-term
time perspective) in leisure time and its effects oninvestment in
learning and academic achievement (GPA) fittedthe data well, c2
(118, N 1168) 266.3, p < .001,RMSEA .03, CFI .97 and TLI .96
(see Fig. 5). Thestandardized regression weights and the
correlations betweenthe different latent variables and the control
variable schoolyear are shown in Table 4.
Compared to the general assumptions of the present study
490 T. Peetsma, I. van der Veen / LearniLooking more closely at
the effects of the short- and long-term time perspectives in
leisure time separately, it isthe growth rate of investment in
learning (.58). Thesenegative effects supported Hypothesis 2
regarding the negativemotivational effect of the long-term time
perspective in leisuretime. However, the initial value of the
long-term timeperspective in leisure time had a small positive
effect (.16) onacademic achievement, which was different from what
waspredicted by Hypothesis 3.
The growth rate of the long-term time perspective in leisuretime
correlated negatively with the initial level of the samevariable
(.33). This finding suggests that students whobecame more and more
interested in leisure in the long term,started from a lower level
of interest in it and vice versa. Forthe second year students the
growth rate of the long-term timeperspective in leisure time was
stronger than for the first-yearstudents, but the effect was small
(.11). The effect is in linewith Hypothesis 1 regarding a growing
long-term timeperspective for the life domain leisure time.
The initial level of investment in learning was slightly
morepositive in the first-year students than in the second year
onesand the initial level of academic achievement of
first-yearstudents was higher compared to that of second year ones.
Thegrowth rate of academic achievement in the first year wasclearly
more negative (.53) than in the second year, whichsupports
Hypothesis 1on declining motivation and academicachievement over
the school years. There was no differentgrowth rate of investment
in learning between the students infirst and second year.
3.4. Comparison of the time perspective in the three
lifedomains
Comparing the results regarding the development of each ofthe
four time perspectives and development of investment inlearning it
is clear that the growth of the long-term timeperspective in school
and professional career had a strongpositive effect on the growth
of investment in learning (.74),whereas the effect on the same
variable of the growth of thelong-term time perspective in social
relations was .65, of thegrowth of the short-term time perspective
in leisure time was.79, and of the growth of long-term perspective
in leisure timewas .58.the initial value had a negative effect on
the initial valuinvestment in learning (.33). There was a similar
negimportant to note the small positive effect (.20) of the
initiallevel of the short-term time perspective in leisure time on
theinitial level of investment in learning. This finding
supportedHypothesis 3. The effect of the growth level of the
short-termtime perspective in leisure time on the growth rate of
invest-ment in learning (.79) was very strong; this effect was
muchstronger than expected in Hypothesis 2. Moreover, the
initiallevel of the short-term time perspective in leisure time
hada weak negative effect on the initial level of
academicachievement.
nd Instruction 21 (2011) 481e494Overall, the long-term time
perspective in school andprofessional career explained most of the
variance in growth of
-
investment in learning (60% vs. 44% for social relations, and46%
for leisure time). Growth of academic achievement wasbest
explained, however, by the growth of both the short-termand
long-term time perspective in leisure time (47% vs. 42%for social
relations, and 41% for school and professionalcareer). To shed
light on the overlap of explained variances, inTable 5 the
correlations between the saved predicted values ofthe latent
variables of the three life domains are presented.
As shown in Table 5 the growth of the long-term timeperspective
in school and professional career had positivecorrelations with the
growth in the time perspective in theother two life domains (social
relations and leisure time). Thecorrelation with the growth of the
long-term time perspectivein social relations was the highest
(.61). Unexpectedly, unlikeHypothesis 4, there was a small positive
correlation with thegrowth of the long-term time perspective in
leisure time. Itappears that a growth in the long-term time
perspective inleisure does not come at the expense of growth in the
long-
T. Peetsma, I. van der Veen / Learning aterm time perspective in
school and professional career.
4. Discussion
The present study focused on the development of studentstime
perspective in different life domains, their investment inlearning,
and their academic achievement, as well as on theinterrelations
between the development of time perspective,investment in learning,
and academic achievement. Theimportance of the present study lies
in the use of process datain a longitudinal design. The use of
measures for different lifedomains allowed the testing of
differential predictions whichadd to the refinement of the
construct future time perspec-tive. Moreover, the measurement of
time perspectiveincluded cognitive, affective, and behavioural
componentsgiving, thus, a more global character to the measure.
What canwe conclude from the present study and how can the results
beunderstood?
Table 5
Pearsons r correlations between the latent variables of time
perspectives.
1 2 3 4
Initial values
1. Long-term time perspective in
school and professional career
1.00
2. Long-term time perspective in
social relations
.49 1.00
3. Short-term time perspective in
leisure time
.06 .36 1.00
4. Long-term time perspective in
leisure time
.15 .23 .56 1.00
Growth rates
1. Long-term time perspective in
school and professional career
1.00
2. Long-term time perspective in
social relations
.61 1.00
3. Short-term time perspective in
leisure time
.42 .54 1.00
4. Long-term time perspective in .09 .29 .71 1.00leisure
time
All correlations are statistically significant.The development
(i.e., growth across the four measurementpoints) of time
perspectives, investment in learning, andacademic achievement was
in general as predicted byHypothesis 1. Specifically, there was
positive growth of short-and long-term time perspectives in leisure
time and negativegrowth of the long-term time perspective in school
andprofessional career, investment in learning, and
academicachievement. Contrary to Hypothesis 1 there was
negativegrowth of the long-term perspective in social relations,
unlikewhat had been found in an earlier cross-sectional study
withstudents from all levels of secondary education (Peetsma,1997).
However, not only was the student population in thatstudy
different, the measurement periods (once a year) werealso
different. In sum, the present study using process datarevealed
negative development over a period of one year of themotivating
long-term time perspective in school and profes-sional career,
investment in learning, and academic achieve-ment, whereas both
short- and long-term time perspectives inleisure time increased
over the school year. The increase of thelong-term time perspective
in leisure time, which is negativelyrelated to investment in
learning, was particularly high. Theseresults confirmed Hypothesis
1.
Regarding the interrelations between the development ofstudents
time perspectives in different life domains and thedevelopment of
their investment in learning, the different timeperspectives seemed
to have comparably strong effects. Forinvestment in learning the
long-term time perspective in schooland professional career was
most important. Remarkably, thelong-term perspective in social
relations also proved to havea quite high positive effect on
investment in learning. However,for academic achievement the most
important was the timeperspectives in leisure time; specifically,
the short-term timeperspective in leisure time had positive
effects, whereas thelong-term one had negative effects. A research
on the devel-opmental trajectories of time perspective in different
lifedomains of students with different levels of academic
achieve-ment would be interesting for the interpretation of these
results.
Possible explanations of the decline in motivation
andachievement in school could be the shift in the importance
oflife domains over the years for young adolescents. In thepresent
study the participants were young students in thelowest track in
secondary education. Therefore, the decrease inthe positively
motivating long-term time perspective in schooland professional
career can be attributed to their loweracademic aspirations. These,
in their turn, could have broughtabout a decrease in investment in
learning and, through that,a decrease in academic achievement. The
long-term timeperspective in social relations seems to play a
motivationalrole for investment in learning in these students. This
probablyexplains the unexpected decrease of this time perspective
thatwas found over time.
During the same period of time the short- and long-termtime
perspectives in leisure time develop. Adopting a long-term time
perspective in leisure time negatively affectsstudents investment
in learning. This finding suggests that
491nd Instruction 21 (2011) 481e494time perspective in leisure
time can undermine studentsmotivation in school. The long-term time
perspective in leisure
-
competitive domains within Future Time Perspective has to
betime
perspective in leisure time is not the cause of the decrease
in
ioural component. In the present study, however, we did not
oti-cent
studies on the development of adolescents motivation for
ng athe long-term time perspective in school and
professionalcareer. Both of them change over time and the
development ofthese time perspectives seems to go together; that
is, the morestudents think of their future professional career the
more theythink of how they are going to spend their leisure (or
free)time. This issue, however, merits further research.
The effect of the time perspective on academic achievementwas
mainly indirect, via investment in learning. Only in themodel of
time perspectives in leisure time there was a smalldirect effect of
the initial levels of short- and long-term timeperspectives in
leisure time on the initial level of academicachievement. This
effect represents an association betweeninitial values rather than
causal effect. This conclusion issupported by the fact that there
was no effect of the growth ofboth time perspectives in leisure
time on the growth ofacademic achievement. It seems that the
students who attachedmore importance to leisure time both at the
short and the longterm at the start also had somewhat initial lower
schoolachievement.
The effects of the time perspectives on investment inlearning
were stronger than their effects on academicachievement. One
explanation can be that except for studentsacademic achievement,
which is information received fromtheir schools, the information on
students time perspectiveand investment in school was
self-reported. This may partlyaccount for the stronger effects of
time perspective oninvestment in learning; however, there are other
possibleexplanations. Academic achievement is influenced by
factorssuch as cognitive ability or learning capabilities, which
are notdirectly related to time perspective. Peetsma (1985) found
fortime perspectives in different life domains and terms of
timeonly one low (r .14) but significant relation with
fourmeasurements of intelligence. Time perspective is related tothe
effort student exert on learning, that is, their investment
inlearning rather than to academic achievement per se. Studentstime
perspective may be influenced by changes in academicachievement.
The present study did not examine this kind ofeffect. Future
research should investigate whether academicachievement affects
students time perspectives, and the latterthe investment in
learning, and through it academicachievement.
4.1. Limitations of the study
In the present study we were able to use relatively
advancedstatistics for the analysis of longitudinal data. However,
westudied the effects of the different time perspectives
separately.In future research, all time perspectives could be
included insomewhat adjusted, that is, the growth in the
long-termtime and in school and professional career were
negativelyinterrelated at the start of the school year, but their
develop-ment was not negatively related; rather they were
weaklypositively related. Therefore, Peetsmas (1997) viewpoint
on
492 T. Peetsma, I. van der Veen / Learnione model, but for this
treatment larger number of studentswould be necessary.school
(Gottfried, Marcoulides, Gottfried, & Oliver, 2009), wefound a
decrease in academic motivation. What can be done tocounteract the
decrease in the long-term time perspective inschool and
professional career, and perhaps also the decreasein the long-term
time perspective in social relations, ofstudents in lower
vocational education? How can schools orothers intervene in the
development of students timeperspective in order to reduce the
decrease in their effort forschool or even increase it? Individual
interventions in thesestudents academic motivation via time
perspectives have beenpublished (Peetsma & Van der Veen, 2009)
showing somepromising results but more research is necessary.
Manyschools are changing their educational system or policy inorder
to meet the needs of young adolescents in this period oftheir lives
and reduce students decrease in motivation. Forstudents in the
lowest secondary school level the start ofa professional career is
not very far away. Meeting the needsof these students in schools or
influencing their timeperspective in school and professional career
could thereforebe particularly fruitful. The results of the present
study may behelpful in this direction.
AcknowledgementsStudents generally start secondary education
well mvated and with positive time perspective. As in other
recompare the effects of the various components of timeperspective,
as had been done in an earlier study (Peetsma,1992). In the Peetsma
(1992) study a concept of time perspec-tive including an affective
component predicted studentsinvestment in learning better than the
merely cognitive compo-nent of time perspective. Future research
could help disentanglewhich component of time perspective is more
important forinvestment in learning and/or academic
achievement.
Because of the specific group of students studied, the ques-tion
arises as to how far the results can be generalized to studentsof
other school tracks. Although students in lower vocationaleducation
make up half of the student population in theNetherlands, a study
including students from all types ofsecondary education would be
necessary to answer this ques-tion. Another limitation related to
the generalizability of theresults of the present study is that the
students were predomi-nantly of Dutch origin. It would be
interesting to comparegroups of students of different ethnic or
cultural background.Possibly, time perspective in different life
domains plays a quitedifferent role in groups of different
cultures, like for instance theimportance attached to leisure
time.
4.2. Educational implicationsThe concept of future time
perspective, as used here,included not only a cognitive but also an
affective and a behav-
nd Instruction 21 (2011) 481e494This research was made possible
by a grant from theNetherlands Organization for Scientific Research
(NWO).
-
References
Bembenutty, H., & Karabenick, S. A. (2004). Inherent
association between
academic delay of gratification, future time perspective, and
self-regulated
learning. Educational Psychology Review, 16(1), 35e57.Browne, M.
W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model
fit.
In K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural
equation models
(pp. 136e162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Canter, D. (1985). Facet theory. New York: Springer.
De Bilde, J., Vansteenkiste, M., & Lens, W. (2011).
Understanding the asso-
ciation between future time perspective and self-regulated
learning through
the lens of self-determination theory. Learning and Instruction,
21(3),
332e344.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The what and why of goal
persuits:
human needs and the self-determination of behaviour.
Psychological
Inquiry, 11, 227e268.De Volder, M. L., & Lens, W. (1982).
Academic achievement and future time
perspective as a cognitiveemotivational concept. Journal of
Personality
5. I dont expect to spend a lot of time socializing with other
people when Im
older.
6. When I think about after I leave school, Im not really
bothered about how
well Ill get on with my family.
Long-term time perspective in leisure time
1. My free time will be a very important part of my life when Im
older.
2. Free time will be very important to me when I leave
school.
3. I love dreaming about what Ill be able to do in my free time
when Im
older.
4. When I think about when I leave school, free time wont play a
very
important part in my life.
5. I dont think free time and holidays are very important when
youre older.
6. I dont expect free time to be very important when I leave
school.
Short-term time perspective in leisure time
1. I can find plenty of things to do in my free time at the
moment.
2. I dont do much in my free time.
3. I often dont really know what to do with my free time.
4. Ive been quite bored in the holidays and in my free time this
year.
5. I have plenty of things to do in my free time at the
moment.
6. Im really enjoying my holidays and free time this year.
ng aand Social Psychology, 42, 566e571.
Dutch Inspectorate of Education. (2005). Onderwijsverslag
2003/2004.Appendix A. Scales of the questionnaire on time
perspectives
Long-term time perspective in school and professional career
1. I like thinking about going to college or what job I might
have when I leave
school.
2. I expect some of my school subjects will help me a lot when I
get a job.
3. I have a good chance of going to college or university or
getting a good job
when I leave school.
4. I love dreaming about going to college or what job I might do
when I leave
school.
5. I dont have much chance of getting a job when I leave
school.
6. Im not bothered about going to college or what job I can do
when I leave
school.
7. The subjects Im learning at school wont be much use to mewhen
I get a job.
Long-term time perspective in social relations
1. I want to get on well with other people when I leave
school.
2. I hope to spend a lot of time with my friends when I leave
school.
3. I hope Ill get on well with my family when Im older.
4. I expect to stay good friends with my school friends after we
leave school.
T. Peetsma, I. van der Veen / Learni[Education report
2003/2004]. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Dutch Inspec-
torate of Education.Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity, youth and
crisis. New York: Norton.
Gjesme, T. (1996). Future-time orientation and motivation. In T.
Gjesme, & R.
Nygard (Eds.), Advances in motivation (pp. 210e222). Oslo:
Scandinavian
University Press.
Gottfried, A. E., Marcoulides, G. A., Gottfried, A. W., &
Oliver, P. H. (2009).
A latent curve model of parental practices and developmental
decline in
math and science academic intrinsic motivation. Journal of
Educational
Psychology, 101(3), 729e739.Hofer, M., Fries, S., Helmke, A.,
Kilian, B., Kuhnle, C., Zivkovic, I., et al.
(2010). Value orientations and motivational interference in
school-
leisure conflict: the case of Vietnam. Learning and Instruction,
20,
139e249.Hofer, M., Kuhnle, C., Kilian, B., Marta, E., &
Fries, S. (2011). Motivational
interference in school-leisure conflict and outcomes: The
differential effect
of two value conceptions. Learning and Instruction, 21(3),
301e316.
Hofer, M., Schmid, S., Fries, S., Dietz, F., Clausen, M., &
Reinders, H. (2007).
Individual values, motivational conflicts, and learning for
school. Learning
and Instruction, 17, 17e28.
Husman, J. (1998). The effect of perceptions of the future on
intrinsic motiva-
tion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Austin, Texas:
University of Texas.
Husman, J., & Lens, W. (1999). The role of the future in
student motivation.
Educational Psychologist, 34, 113e125.
Lens, W. (1986). Future time perspective: a
cognitiveemotivational concept.In D. R. Brown, & J. Veroff
(Eds.), Frontiers of motivational psychology
(pp. 173e190). New York: Springer.
Lens, W., Simons, J., & Dewitte, S. (2001). Student
motivation and self-
regulation as a function of future time perspective and
perceived instru-
mentality. In S. Volet, & S.Jarvela. (Eds.), Motivation in
learning contexts:
Theoretical advances and methodological implications (pp.
233e248).
New York: Pergamon.
Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (1987). Statistical
analysis with missing data.
New York: Wiley.
Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (1989). The analysis of
social science data with
missing values. Sociological Methods and Research, 18,
292e326.Maehr, M. L., & Braskamp, L. A. (1986). The motivation
factor: A theory of
personal investment. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2004). Mplus users guide
(3rd ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.
Nurmi, J. E. (1989). Planning, motivation, and evaluation in
orientation to the
future: a latent structure analysis. Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology, 30,
64e71.
Nuttin, J. R., & Lens, W. (1985). Future time perspective
and motivation,
theory and research method. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
Peetsma, T. T. D. (1985). Meting van toekomstperspectief bij
leerlingen van
mavo, havo en vwo. [Measurement of Dutch secondary students
perspec-
tives concerning their future]. Amsterdam: Universiteit Van
Amsterdam.
Peetsma, T. T. D. (1992). Toekomst als motor?
Toekomstperspectieven van leer-
lingen in het voortgezet onderwijs en hun inzet voor school.
[The future as an
incentive? Secondary education students perspectives concerning
their future
and their investment in school]. Amsterdam: Universiteit van
Amsterdam.
Peetsma, T. T. D. (1997, August). Decline in pupils motivation
during
secondary education. Paper presented at the 7th European
Conference for
Research on Learning and Instruction, Athens.
Peetsma, T. T. D. (2000). Future time perspective as a predictor
of school
investment. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,
44,
177e192.Peetsma, T. T. D., Hascher, T., Veenvan der, I., &
Roede, E. (2005). Relations
between adolescents self-evaluations, time perspectives,
motivation for
school and their achievement in different countries and at
different ages.
European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20(3),
209e225.Peetsma, T., & Van der Veen, I. (2009). Influencing
students motivation for
school: the case for first-year students in the Netherlands in
the lowest
level of secondary school. In M. Wosnitza, S. A. Karabenick, A.
Efkllides,
& P. Nenniger (Eds.), Contempory motivation research: From
global to
local perspectives (pp. 299e320). Gottingen, Germany:
Hogrefe.
Piaget, J. (1955). The development of time concept in the child.
In P. Hoch, &
493nd Instruction 21 (2011) 481e494J. Zubin (Eds.),
Psychopathology of childhood (pp. 34e44). New York:
Grune & Stratton.
-
Raynor, J. O., & Entin, E. E. (1983). The function of future
orientation as
a determinant of human behavior in step-path theory of action.
Interna-
tional Journal of Psychology, 18, 463e487.
Roede, E. (1989). Explaining student investment, an
investigation of high
school students retrospective causal accounts of their
investment in
school. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Seijts, G. H. (1998). The importance of future time perspective
in
theories of work motivation. The Journal of Psychology,
132(2),
154e168.
Stouthard, M. E. A., & Peetsma, T. T. D. (1999). Future-time
perspective:
analysis of a facet-designed questionnaire. European Journal of
Psycho-
logical Assessment, 15(2), 99e105.
Strathman, A., Gleicher, F., Boninger, D. S., & Edwards, C.
S. (1994). The
consideration of future consequences: weighing immediate and
distal
outcomes of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 66,
742e752.
Zhang,L.,Karabenick, S.A.,Maruno, S.,&Lauermann, F.
(2011).Academic delay
of gratification and childrens study time allocation as a
function of proximity
to consequential academic goals. Learning and Instruction,
21(1), 77e94.
Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Putting time in
perspective: a valid,
reliable individual-differences metric. Journal of Personality
and Social
Psychology, 77(6), 1271e1288.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: an essential motive to
learn.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 82e91.
494 T. Peetsma, I. van der Veen / Learning and Instruction 21
(2011) 481e494
Relations between the development of future time perspective in
three life domains, investment in learning, and academic ac
...IntroductionThe conceptualization of future time perspectiveTime
perspective and learning behaviourTime perspective in different
life domains and learning behaviourDimensions of time
perspectiveDevelopment of time perspectiveThe present study
hypotheses
MethodDesign participantsInstrumentsTime perspective in school
and professional career, social relations, and leisure
timeInvestment in learningAcademic achievement
Data analysis
ResultsTime perspective in school and professional careerTime
perspective in social relationsTime perspectives in leisure
timeComparison of the time perspective in the three life
domains
DiscussionLimitations of the studyEducational implications
AcknowledgementsAppendix AReferences
