Student perceptions and motivation in the classroom - Springer Link

Soc Psychol Educ (2009) 12:101–112 DOI 10.1007/s11218-008-9070-2

Student perceptions and motivation in the classroom: exploring relatedness and value Annette Kaufman · Tonya Dodge

Received: 19 November 2007 / Accepted: 1 September 2008 / Published online: 15 October 2008 © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract According to Self-Determination Theory, feelings of relatedness and value of a behavior are critical factors that affect internalization and integration. The purpose of the current study was to identify factors that influence relatedness and value in an academic setting. Specifically, the study investigated the effects of autonomy, mastery goals, performance-approach goals, and performance-avoidance goals, on two dependent variables: relatedness to the professor and value of the course. Participants were 222 undergraduate students (90 males) enrolled in introductory psychology classes. Linear regression analyses showed a statistically significant effect of mastery goals and autonomy on relatedness such that higher scores were associated with greater relatedness. A similar pattern emerged for value. Neither performance-approach nor performance-avoidance goals were significantly associated with relatedness or value. Theoretical and practical contributions are discussed. Keywords

Relatedness · Value · Motivation · Goal · Autonomy

Intrinsic motivation refers to an internal state or condition that influences or drives behavior. Activities that are intrinsically motivated are those that individuals choose to do and find interesting and enjoyable (Deci and Ryan 1987). Intrinsic motivation

A. Kaufman (B) Department of Psychology, The George Washington University, 2125 G Street, Washington, DC 20052, USA e-mail: [email protected] T. Dodge Department of Psychology, Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected]

123

102

A. Kaufman, T. Dodge

is believed to be important in the academic setting because it is positively associated with task persistence, effort, and enjoyment (Ryan and Deci 2000; Vansteenkiste et al. 2004; Waterman 2005; Wild et al. 1997). Studies have shown that external rewards, such as grades, tend to undermine intrinsic motivation in the academic setting (Deci 1971; Deci et al. 1999). Though students are often driven by external reasons to do schoolwork, there are characteristics of the school environment that can facilitate internalization or integration of extrinsic rewards. Two such characteristics are: (1) how connected a student feels to his/her teacher and (2) how valuable the student perceives the task to be. Studies have identified relatedness and value as two factors that are critical for facilitating and maintaining intrinsic motivation (Deci and Ryan 2000a,b; Turney 1974). Relatedness refers to the desire to feel connected to others (Bowlby 1958; Ryan 1993). In academic settings, research has focused primarily on students’ feelings of relatedness to teachers (Gest et al. 2005). This research has shown that students’ perceptions of relatedness or connectedness to their teachers are associated with positive outcomes, such as positive behavioral engagement and academic outcomes (Connell et al. 1994; Connell and Welborn 1991; Decker et al. 2007). Value refers to how worthwhile or important a person perceives an activity to be. Individuals that find personal meaning or importance in engaging in a behavior will be more likely to internalize that behavior, even in the presence of extrinsic motivators (Deci et al. 1994). Taken together this literature demonstrates that relatedness and value may foster internalization or integration of extrinsic motivators. Although relatedness and value appear to have an important effect on students’ academic experiences, almost no studies have examined factors that influence relatedness and value in the academic setting. The objective of the present study is to identify factors that influence relatedness and value in the college setting. Two such factors are autonomy and achievement goals.

1 Autonomy and achievement goals 1.1 Autonomy A number of studies have identified autonomy as a factor critical for success in the academic setting (Grolnick and Ryan 1987; Vansteenkiste et al. 2005). Autonomy refers to a person’s desire to feel choiceful in their actions and to be the locus of initiation of those actions (Connell and Ryan 1987). Students who characterize their teachers as autonomy supportive are more likely to be intrinsically motivated than students who do not characterize their teachers this way (Grolnick and Ryan 1987). Other studies conducted in the academic setting have shown that autonomy is positively associated with task interest, conceptual understanding, grades, and psychological well-being (Patrick et al. 1993; Reeve et al. 2002; Vansteenkiste et al. 2004; Williams and Deci 1998). Autonomy is likely to play an important role in facilitating feelings of relatedness and value in the classroom setting.

123

Student perceptions and motivation

103

1.2 Achievement goals Achievement goals provide a framework for how individuals interpret and experience achievement settings (Elliot 1999). Many studies have examined the role of achievement goals in the academic setting (Church et al. 2001; Harackiewicz et al. 1997, 2002; McGregor and Elliot 2002). Achievement goals influence the way students approach, experience, and perform in their classes (Elliot and Harackiewicz 1996; Grant and Dweck 2003; Harackiewicz et al. 2000). Two types of achievement goals have been identified: mastery and performance goals. Mastery goals are aspirations that people hold in order to gain skills and competencies in comparison to their own prior performance. For individuals with mastery goals, success is achieved when one has learned something new (Dweck and Leggett 1988). Those with mastery goals view challenges as an opportunity to learn a new skill or to improve upon one’s past performance. Individuals with mastery goals show adaptive responses to feedback, even when the feedback is negative, because such feedback provides information about how to improve one’s skills or abilities (Dweck 1986). A positive relationship has been established between mastery goals and intrinsic motivation (Cury et al. 2002; Elliot and Church 1997; Shih 2005). While this literature has shown that mastery goals facilitate intrinsic motivation, the current study examines the relationship between mastery goals and two components of intrinsic motivation, relatedness and value. In contrast, individuals with performance goals are concerned with normatively based evaluations or comparisons (Dweck 1992). Performance goals have been dichotomized into approach goals and avoidance goals. Performance-approach goals involve moving toward a desired or positive outcome, and individuals holding strong performance-approach goals want to demonstrate how much ability they have relative to others. Performance-avoidance goals involve moving away from an undesired outcome, and individuals holding strong performance-avoidance goals want to avoid documenting their inability relative to others. Success for those who hold performance goals is the result of outperforming others whereas failure is the result of being outperformed by others. This focus on normative evaluations has implications for the way feedback is interpreted. When an individual with performance goals (both approach and avoidance) receives negative feedback, the self is threatened because such feedback signifies incompetence, not an additional opportunity to learn (Grant and Dweck 2003).

2 Current study Although much work has examined how autonomy and achievement goals influence motivational and performance outcomes, no research to date has examined the affect of these constructs on relatedness and value. Given that autonomy and achievement goals exert such strong affects on performance in the academic setting, it seems likely these constructs may also affect relatedness and value. The purpose of the current study is to test whether autonomy and achievement goals influence relatedness and value in a college course.

123

104


2.1 Relatedness It is likely that autonomy will be positively associated with relatedness. Research has shown a positive relationship between autonomy and relationship satisfaction such that those who report greater autonomy support in a relationship report that relationship as more satisfying than those who report lower levels of autonomy support (Hodgins et al. 1996). This suggests that autonomy has a positive effect on relationship quality. This logic can be extended to the college setting and predicts that students who have a greater sense of autonomy will feel closer or more related to their professors. Like autonomy, mastery goals are expected to have a positive influence on relatedness. Students with mastery goals are concerned with improving their skills and as a result are likely to interpret feedback received in classes as information for how to improve. Because feedback is given by the professor, students with higher mastery goals may be more likely to view the professor as a facilitator of the learning process than those with lower mastery goals. Both performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals are expected to be negatively associated with relatedness. Those who hold performance goals are constantly looking to others for feedback to gauge how well they are doing. Because professors in an academic setting serve as the source for feedback, this feedback may cause students to feel threatened and may result in a barrier for feelings of relatedness. For these students, a professor may be viewed as an authority figure or judge of their ability, not a facilitator of learning. Thus, a negative relationship is expected between both performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals and relatedness.

2.2 Value It is likely that autonomy will be positively associated with value. Students who feel they have greater autonomy should find their class to be of greater value than those who feel they have less autonomy. This is because students who experience greater autonomy have selected their activities out of personal preference and want to see that their choices are valuable. As a result, students who report higher feelings of autonomy will experience their class as more valuable than individuals who report lower feelings of autonomy. As with autonomy, it is expected that mastery goals will be positively associated with value. Students with stronger mastery goals are likely to view their class as more valuable than those with weaker mastery goals because the class provides an opportunity to learn and improve. Because students with stronger mastery goals are interested in acquiring new knowledge and skills, they may view college courses as a valuable way to achieve these goals than those with weaker mastery goals. It is predicted that both performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals will be negatively related to value. Those with strong performance-approach goals may value a class less than those with weaker performance-approach goals because their focus is on demonstrating success relative to others, not the inherent value of the class itself. Similarly, for those with performance-avoidance goals, the class is not perceived as an opportunity to experience success, but rather the chance to fail.

123


105

As a result students holding strong performance-avoidance goals may see limited value or utility in the course. Because students with either type of performance goal are focused primarily on their standing relative to others, the class is not useful per se. Instead, relative comparisons are viewed as important. Students holding both performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals will be focused on performance outcomes, such as obtaining good grades, rather than the value of the experience. We predict a negative relationship between performance-approach and performanceavoidance goals and value. 3 Method 3.1 Participants Two hundred and twenty-two (90 men and 132 women) undergraduate students in four introductory level psychology classes participated in the study (general psychology = 145, social psychology = 77). Approximately 72% were Caucasian, 4% were African American, 4% were Hispanic, 12% were Asian, and the remaining 8% were split between Native American and other. Approximately 40% were freshmen, 43% sophomores, 12% were juniors, and 5% were seniors. 3.2 Procedure The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at The George Washington University. Trained research assistants attended the last 15 min of class. After the professor had left the room, research assistants read the following description of the study aloud, “Today, you have the opportunity to participate in a research study that will assess how the school environment influences student perceptions about school.” Participation was voluntary and students who did not wish to participate were free to leave the room. Those who remained were asked to read and sign an informed consent form. After all of the consent forms were signed and collected, the survey was distributed. 3.3 Measures Reliability coefficients for all measures are shown in parentheses in Table 1. Relatedness and value were assessed using two subscales from the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (Self-Determination Theory, n.d.). Participants were asked to think about the class that they were currently in while reading each statement and indicate how true each statement was for them. Each item was measured on a seven point scale with points labeled 1 (not at all true), 4 (somewhat true) and 7 (very true). 3.3.1 Relatedness The relatedness subscale contains six items that assess participants’ perception of relatedness or connectedness to their professor in the class (e.g. “I feel really distant

123

106


Table 1 Zero-order correlations for all study variables Variable

1

2

3

4

5

6

1. Performance-approach 2. Performance-avoid 3. Mastery 4. Autonomy 5. Value 6. Relatedness

(.90) .23** .07 −.04 .03 .001

–

– – (.87) .39** .65** .29**

– – – (.78) .36** .25**

– – – – (.91) .49**

– – – – – (.69)

(.77) −.13 −.22** −.05 −.15*

*Correlation is significant at the .05 level,**Correlation is significant at the .01 level Note: Reliability coefficients are shown parenthetically

to this professor” and “I’d like the chance to interact with this professor more often”). Items were scored so that higher numbers indicated greater relatedness. 3.3.2 Value The value scale contains four items that assess participants’ perception of how valuable and the class is for them (e.g. “I would be willing to take a class similar to this again because it has some value to me” and “I think this is an important class”). Items were scored so that higher numbers indicated greater perception of value. 3.3.3 Autonomy The perceived choice subscale of Sheldon and Deci (1996) Self-Determination Scale was adapted to assess the extent to which participants function in an autonomous or self-determined way. Participants read five pairs of statements (e.g. statement A: “I am free to do whatever I decide to do in this class” and statement B: “What I do is often not what I would choose to do in this class”) and were asked to think about which statement was truer of them. These items were measured on a five point scale with the endpoints labeled 1 (only A feels true) and 5 (only B feels true). Items were scored so that higher numbers reflected greater autonomy. 3.3.4 Achievement goals Elliot and Church’s (1997) achievement goal questionnaire was adapted to assess participants’ achievement goals in the course. This questionnaire contains three sixitem scales. One scale contains items measuring mastery goals (e.g. “In a class like this, I prefer course material that arouses my curiosity, even if it is difficult to learn”). One scale contains items measuring performance-approach goals (e.g. “I am motivated by the thought of outperforming my peers in this class”). One scale contains items measuring performance-avoidance goals (e.g. “I often think to myself, ‘What if I do badly in this class?”’). Each item was measured on a seven point scale with points labeled 1 (not at all true for me), 4 (somewhat true for me), and 7 (very true for me). Higher scores reflect greater propensity toward the goal.

123


107

3.4 Data analysis Linear regression analysis was used to test study objectives. To test the first objective of the study, relatedness was regressed onto autonomy, mastery goals, performanceapproach goals, and performance-avoidance goals. To test the second objective, value was regressed onto autonomy, mastery goals, performance-approach goals, and performance-avoidance goals. 4 Results 4.1 Descriptive statistics Means and standard deviations of all study variables are shown in Table 2. Value differed significantly by gender F(1,221) = 10.63, P < .001, therefore gender is entered as a covariate in the analysis where value is the dependent variable. As seen in Table 2, females perceived the class as being more valuable than males (t = 3.26, P = .001). Overall, participants appeared to have strong mastery goals. Performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals were above the mid-point of the scale. Table 1 presents the zero-order correlations for all study variables. Consistent with previous research, there was a positive correlation between performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals (Elliot and Church 1997). Performance-avoidance goals were negatively associated with autonomy and relatedness. 4.2 Relatedness To test the effect of goals and autonomy on relatedness, relatedness was regressed onto autonomy, mastery goals, performance-approach goals, and performance-avoidance goals. The effect of autonomy was statistically significant and the unstandardized regression coefficient indicated a positive impact of autonomy on relatedness, such that for every one unit autonomy increases, relatedness is predicted to increase .15 units (b = 0.15, P < .05). The effect of mastery goals was statistically significant and the unstandardized regression coefficient indicated a positive impact of mastery goals on

Table 2 Means and standard deviation of study variables by gender Variable

Relatedness Value Performance-approach goals Performance-avoidance goals Mastery goals Autonomy

Overall

Males

M

SD

5.48 5.57 4.46 4.52 5.31 2.97

.81 1.20 1.38 1.22 1.11 .81

M 5.47 5.26∗ 4.29 4.31∗ 5.16 2.95

Females SD .80 1.28 1.50 1.21 1.16 .72

M 5.49 5.78∗ 4.56 4.67∗ 5.40 2.98

SD .82 1.09 1.29 1.20 1.07 .87

∗ P < .05

123

108 Table 3 Variables associated with relatedness

A. Kaufman, T. Dodge Variable

Unstandardized beta

Standard error

P-value

Intercept Performance-approach Performance-avoid Mastery Autonomy

5.49 0.01 −0.06 0.16 0.15

0.05 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.07

.00 .84 .17 .00 .04

relatedness, such that for every one unit mastery goals increase, relatedness is predicted to increase .16 units (b = 0.16, P < .01). Performance-approach and performanceavoidance goals were not statistically significant predictors of relatedness. The overall model was significant F(4, 217) = 6.92, P < .01 (adjusted R2 = 0.10). Results of this analysis are shown in Table 3. 4.3 Value To test the effect of goals and autonomy, value was regressed onto autonomy and goals. Because value differed by gender, gender was entered as a covariate in this analysis. There was a statistically significant positive effect of autonomy on value, such that for every one unit autonomy increases, value is predicted to increase .20 units (b = 0.20, P < .05). The effect of mastery goals was statistically significant and the unstandardized regression coefficient indicated a positive impact of mastery on value, such that for every one unit mastery goals increase, value is predicted to increase .64 units (b = 0.64, P < .01). Performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals were not statistically significantly predictive of value. The overall model was significant F (5, 216) = 29.67,P < .01 (adjusted R2 = 0.45). Results of the analysis are shown in Table 4. 5 Discussion The present study is one of the first to examine the independent effects that autonomy and achievement goals have on relatedness and value. Results showed that mastery goals and autonomy were significantly associated with relatedness such that those who Table 4 Variables associated with value controlling for gender

123

Variable

Unstandardized beta

Standard error

P-value

Intercept Performance-approach Performance-avoid Mastery Autonomy Gender

5.01 −0.03 0.04 0.64 0.20 0.36

0.21 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.12

.00 .50 .40 .00 .02 .00


109

had stronger mastery goals and those who felt more autonomous reported feeling more connected to their professors. Mastery goals and autonomy were also significantly significant predictors of value such that those who had stronger mastery goals and those who felt more autonomous reported feeling that the class was more valuable. The findings for value are especially notable because no prior research has examined this construct in an academic setting. Results of the present study make a number of theoretical and practical contributions. The results make theoretical contributions to both Self-Determination Theory (Deci and Ryan 2000a) and Achievement Goal Theory (Elliot 1999). Recent studies on Self-Determination Theory have begun to highlight the critical role that internalization and integration play in psychological and physical well-being (Burton et al. 2006; Deci and Ryan 2000b; Williams et al. 1996). Higher levels of relatedness and value are associated with integration of extrinsic behaviors, making the behaviors more intrinsic to the individual. The present study suggests that mastery goals and autonomy may facilitate two constructs essential for that process: relatedness and value. Results of the study extend the existing literature on Achievement Goal Theory. The results showed that mastery goals are positively and significantly associated with feelings of relatedness to the professor and value of the course. This finding is consistent with other studies that show mastery goals are positively related to task interest or internalized motivation (Elliot and Harackiewicz 1996). In addition, the present results suggest that performance goals neither facilitate nor inhibit self reports of relatedness or value among undergraduate students. These null findings for performance goals in predicting relatedness and value warrant future attention because past studies have documented a negative relationship between performance-avoidance goals and intrinsic motivation (Elliot and Church 1997; Elliot and Harackiewicz 1996). Those who hold performance goals may be focused on the outcomes of their efforts rather than the process of getting there or the value they may get out of the learning experience. Furthermore, those with strong performance goals may not view the professor as someone to hold feelings of relatedness or connectedness towards, as they are viewed as a giver of rewards and punishments (e.g. grades). The present study has a number of implications for higher education policy and for the classroom. Over the past decade administrators in higher education have reported unacceptably high attrition rates. At two-year public institutions only 51% of students enrolled return the second year, and at four year public institutions about 68% of students enrolled return the second year (American College Testing Program 2007). To address attrition rates, it has been suggested that colleges and universities implement programs to make students feel more related or connected to their coursework (Watson et al. 2004). The present data suggest another way to improve feelings of relatedness: providing students with more choice in their curriculum and fostering a sense of mastery goals. Such improvements can be targeted at both the structural or policy level, as well as at the classroom level. At the structural level, one possible change would be for universities and colleges to provide course offerings where the goals and outcomes of the courses focus on enhancing knowledge and skills (mastery focus) instead of performance based outcomes like a grade. Projects where students may demonstrate knowledge of course material through application to the real world would be one such way to increase

123

110


feelings of mastery. Rather than having exams with a set of pre-determined questions, students could be asked to write openly about what they have learned. Enrollment in these types of courses may lead to increased feelings of relatedness and value. Although structural changes like providing special courses may be cost or resource prohibitive, there are specific things that can be done by advisers and professors that might improve feelings of relatedness and value. For example, colleges and universities could change the way they describe the general curriculum requirements and requirements for the major. It might be worthwhile to convey to students that they have the autonomy to choose the direction of their education and to stress the decisions made about courses are a reflection of the student. Thus, encouraging students to take ownership of their course selection and overall education may improve how connected a student feels to the educational environment and the value s/he places on their education. As a result, student retention rates would likely improve. Although this study makes contributions to Self-Determination Theory and offers interesting directions for future research, there are several limitations that must be acknowledged. This research used a cross-sectional design and future research should examine the relationships under study in a prospective design to see whether autonomy and achievement goals predict changes in relatedness and value over time. The present study used a sample of college students making it difficult to generalize the results to other younger or older populations or to other domains such as the workplace. Despite these limitations, we feel the study makes interesting contributions to the existing literature on factors influencing student motivation. Acknowledgements We wish to thank Stephen Forssell for his comments on this manuscript. We wish to thank the research assistants who contributed to this project: Jennifer Clift, Dana Epstein, Crystal Kannankeril, and Mary Yama.

References American College Testing Program. (2007). National collegiate retention and persistence to degree rates. Retrieved July 26 from http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/retain_2007.pdf. Bowlby, J. (1958). The nature of the child’s tie to his mother. Jahrbuch der Psychoanalyse, 99, 350–373. Burton, K. D., Lydon, J. E., D’Alessandro, D. U., & Koestner, R. (2006). The differential effects of intrinsic and identified motivation on well-being and performance: Prospective, experimental, and implicit approaches to self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 750–762. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.750 Church, M. A., Elliot, A. J., & Gable, S. L. (2001). Perceptions of classroom environment, achievement goals, and achievement outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 43–54. doi:10.1037/0022-0663. 93.1.43. Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Self-regulatory style questionnaire: A measure of external, introjected, identified, and intrinsic reasons for initiating behavior. Manual, University of Rochester. Connell, J. P., Spencer, M. B., & Aber, J. L. (1994). Educational risk and resilience in African-American youth: Context, self, action, and outcomes in school. Child Development, 65(2), 493–506. doi:10.2307/ 1131398. Connell, J. P., & Welborn, J. G. (Eds.). (1991). Competence, autonomy and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes (Vol. 23). Hillsdale, NH: Erlbaum. Cury, F., Elliot, A., Sarrazin, P., Da Fonseca, D., & Rufo, M. (2002). The trichotomous achievement goal model and intrinsic motivation: A sequential mediational analysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 473–481. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00017-3.

123


111

Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18(1), 105–115. doi:10.1037/h0030644. Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The selfdetermination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62(1), 119–142. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494. 1994.tb00797.x. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627–668. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1024–1037. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1024 Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000a). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the selfdetermination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01 Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000b). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. The American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. doi:10.1037/0003-066X. 55.1.68. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. The American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040–1048. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040. Dweck, C. S. (1992). The study of goals in psychology. Psychological Science, 3(3), 165–167. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00019.x. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256. Elliot, A. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34(3), 169–189. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3403_3. Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 218–232. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.218. Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 461–475. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.461. Gest, S. D., Welsh, J. A., & Domitrovich, C. E. (2005). Behavioral predictors of changes in social relatedness and liking school in elementary school. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 281–301. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2005.06.002. Grant, H., & Dweck, C. S. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 541–553. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.541. Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children’s learning: An experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 891–898. doi:10.1037/ 0022-3514.52.5.890. Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Carter, S. M., Lehto, A. T., & Elliot, A. J. (1997). Predictors and consequences of achievement goals in the college classroom: Maintaining interest and making the grade. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1284–1295. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1284. Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Carter, S. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Short-term and long-term consequences of achievement goals: Predicting interest and performance over time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 316–330. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.2.316. Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Predicting success in college: A longitudinal study of achievement goals and ability measures as predictors of interest and performance from freshman year through graduation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 562–575. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.562. Hodgins, H. S., Koestner, R., & Duncan, N. (1996). On the compatibility of autonomy and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 227–237. doi:10.1177/0146167296223001. Legault, L., Green-Demers, I., & Pelletier, L. (2006). Why do high school students lack motivation in the classroom? Toward an understanding of academic amotivation and the role of social support. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 567–582. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.567. McGregor, H. A., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Achievement goals as predictors of achievement-relevant processes prior to task engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 381–395. doi:10.1037/0022-0663. 94.2.381. Patrick, B. C., Skinner, E. A., & Connell, J. P. (1993). What motivates children’s behavior and emotion? Joint effects of perceived control and autonomy in the academic domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 781–791. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.781.

123

112


Reeve, J., Jang, H., Hardre, P., & Omura, M. (2002). Providing a rationale in an autonomy-supportive way as a strategy to motivate others during an uninteresting activity. Motivation and Emotion, 26(3), 183–206. doi:10.1023/A:1021711629417. Ryan, R. M. (1993). Agency and organization: Intrinsic motivation, autonomy and the self in psychological development (Vol. 40). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020. Self Determination Theory. An Approach to Human Motivation and Personality. The Self-Determination Scale. (Retrieved January 22, 2007). http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/measures/selfdet.html. Sheldon, K., & Deci, E. (1996). The self-determination scale. University of Rochester. Shih, S. (2005). Taiwanese sixth graders’ achievement goals and their motivation, strategy use, and grades: An examination of the multiple goal perspective. The Elementary School Journal, 106(1), 39–58. doi:10.1086/496906. Turney, J. R. (1974). Activity outcome expectancies and intrinsic activity values as predictors of several motivation indexes for technical-professionals. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 11(1), 65–82. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(74)90005-1. Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivating learning, performance, and persistence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 246–260. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.246. Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Matos, L. (2005). Examining the motivational impact of intrinsic versus extrinsic goal framing and autonomy-supportive versus internally controlling communication style on early adolescents’ academic achievement. Child Development, 76(2), 483–501. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00858.x. Waterman, A. S. (2005). When effort is enjoyed: Two studies of intrinsic motivation for personally salient activities. Motivation and Emotion, 29(3), 165–188. doi:10.1007/s11031-005-9440-4. Watson, G., Johnson, G. C., & Auston, H. (2004). Exploring relatedness to field of study as an indicator of student retention. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(1), 57–72. doi:10.1080/ 0729436032000168496. Wild, T. C., Enzle, M. E., Nix, G., & Deci, E. L. (1997). Perceiving others as intrinsically or extrinsically motivated: Effects on expectancy formation and task engagement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(8), 837–848. doi:10.1177/0146167297238005. Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1998). The importance of supporting autonomy in medical education. Annals of Internal Medicine, 129, 303–308. Williams, G. C., Grow, V. M., Freedman, Z. R., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Motivational predictors of weight loss and weight-loss maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 115–126.

Author Biographies Annette Kaufman is a doctoral candidate in Applied Social Psychology at The George Washington University in Washington, DC. Her research interests include adolescent health and risk-taking behaviors, decision making related to health, and motivational factors that impact health behavior. Tonya Dodge is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology at Skidmore College. Her research focuses on identifying factors that facilitate and inhibit physical and psychological well-being.

123