Motivation

Development of Achievement Motivation

Allan Wigfield Jacquelynne S. Eccles

University of Maryland University of Michigan

Ulrich Schiefele Robert Roeser

University of Bielefeld New York University

Pamela Davis-Kean

University of Michigan

To appear in W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Volume Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology, 6th Ed. Vol. 3, Social, Emotional, and Personality Development (N. Eisenberg, Vol. Ed.). New York: John Wiley. We would like to thank Ellen Skinner and Nancy Eisenberg for helpful comments on an earlier version of this chapter.

1

Motivation

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OVERVIEW 4

CURRENT THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON MOTIVATION 6

Theories Concerned Primarily With The Question “ 7

Can I Do This Task?”

Theories Concerned With the Question “Do I Want To Do 17

This Task and Why?”

Theories Concerned With the Question “What do I Have to do 41

to Succeed on This Task?”

THE DEVELOPMENT OF MOTIVATION: WITHIN PERSON 49

CHANGE AND GROUP DIFFERENCES

Within Person Change in Motivation 50

The Development and Remediation of Motivational Problems 74

The Development of Gender Differences in Motivation 80

The Development of Group Differences in Motivation: The 85

Roles of Culture, Ethnicity, and Immigration

THE SOCIALIZATION OF MOTIVATION: PARENTAL 95

INFLUENCES

THE SOCIALIZATION OF MOTIVATION: INFLUENCES OF 110

SCHOOL/INSTRUCTIONAL CONTEXTS AND SCHOOL TRANSITIONS

Teacher Beliefs and General Instructional Practices 111

Within the Classroom

School Level Characteristics and Student Motivation 120

School Transitions and Motivational Development 123

THE SOCIALIZATION OF MOTIVATION: ROLES OF PEERS 134

CONCLUSIONS 138

REFERENCES 142

2

Motivation

Development of Achievement Motivation

Overview

Work on the development of children’s achievement motivation has continued to flourish since the fifth edition of this Handbook was published in 1998. In this chapter we update Eccles, Wigfield, and Schiefele’s (1998) chapter on motivation from the previous edition of the Handbook. Motivational psychologists study what moves people to act and why people think and do what they do (Pintrich, 2003; Weiner, 1992). Thus motivation energizes and directs actions, and so has great relevance to many important developmental outcomes. Achievement motivation refers more specifically to motivation relevant to performance on tasks in which standards of excellence are operative. Because much of the work in the developmental and educational psychology fields on motivation has focused on achievement motivation, we emphasize it in this chapter. .

How can we conceptualize broadly the nature of motivation, its influences on behavior, and its development? Motivation is most directly observable in the level of energy in individuals’ behaviors. Researchers studying motivation posit various sources of this energy. Historically, drives, needs, and reinforcements were proposed as the primary sources (see Eccles et al., 1998; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Weiner, 1992), and needs continue to be prominent in one major current motivational theory. However, much current theory and research on motivation focuses on individuals’ beliefs, values, and goals as primary influences on motivation (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). This implies that the processes influencing motivation are cognitive, conscious, affective, and often under control of the individual. It is the belief, value, and goals constructs prominent in current theoretical models that we focus on in this chapter.

With respect to influences on behavior, children’s motivation relates to their choices about which tasks and activities to do, the persistence with which they pursue those activities, the intensity of their engagement in them, and their performance on them. Depending on their motivation, some individuals approach activities in different areas with great persistence and enthusiasm, whereas others seek to avoid these activities. Thus motivation influences the ways in which individuals’ do or do not participate in different activities. Once engaged in an activity, motivation can influence how diligently the activity is pursued, and the ways in which it is pursued. Fundamentally, motivational theorists and researchers work to understand the motivational predictors of choice, persistence, and effort (Eccles et al., 1998).

With respect to development, there are important changes in children’s motivation as they grow up. The prevailing pattern of change with respect to achievement motivation for many children is a decline over the school years. We discuss the reasons for this decline in this chapter. There are also important individual and group differences in the development of motivation. Many researchers have focused on gender differences in motivation, and there is increasing interest in cultural differences in motivation. We highlight work on both kinds of differences, with a particular emphasis on culture and motivation, as much work on this topic has been done over the last decade. We noted above that current theoretical perspectives often emphasize psychological beliefs, values, and goals as crucial to motivation. However, children’s motivational development also is strongly influenced by different socialization agents, such as parents, teachers, and peers, and by the contexts in which they develop. We discuss these influences in this chapter. Indeed, a hallmark of much recent work on motivation is a concern for how different contexts influence motivation (Urdan, 1999).

To present the work on motivation we organize our chapter in a similar fashion to the one published in the previous edition of this handbook, with some deletions and some additions. In order to incorporate the new work into the chapter we deleted or shortened the sections of the chapter focusing on the history of the field. Readers can consult that chapter (Eccles et al., 1998) or Weiner (1992) for this history. To explain the nature of motivation, we begin with a discussion of current theories. Some theories discussed in our previous chapter receive less attention this time and some more attention based on our assessment of their current influence on the field. We discuss next how children’s motivation develops. We nest our discussion of group differences in motivation in this section because these differences are developmental in nature; that is, they emerge over the course of children’s development. Next we turn to how children’s motivation is socialized in the home, school,

3

Motivation

and by peers. We conclude with a brief overall assessment of the state of theory and research in the achievement motivation field.

CURRENT THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON MOTIVATION

Current achievement motivation theories continue to emphasize children’s beliefs, values, and goals as prominent influences on motivation. That is, many theorists adopt a social cognitive perspective on the nature of motivation (Eccles et al., 1998; Pintrich, 2003). Central constructs of interest to motivation theorists include self-efficacy, perceptions of control, and other competence-related beliefs; the goals (both specific and general) children have for learning and other activities; children’s interest and intrinsic motivation for learning; and children’s valuing of achievement. Although the study of beliefs, goals, and values remains strong, self-determination theorists continue to emphasize the role of basic psychological needs and how they influence motivation.

As Eccles et al. (1998) did we organize our discussion of motivation theories and research around three broad motivation-related questions children can ask themselves: “Can I do this task?” “Do I want to do this task and why?”, and “What do I have to do to succeed on this task?” The first two questions primarily are motivational, whereas the third merges cognitive and motivational variables crucial to the regulation of achievement behavior. Some theories of course include constructs that deal with all of these questions, but even so we find these questions to be a useful way to organize the theories and constructs.

Theories Concerned Primarily With the Question "Can I Do This Task?"

Competence-related beliefs, including individuals' beliefs about their competence, self-efficacy, and expectancies for success; attributions and beliefs about intelligence; sense of control over outcomes, relate directly to the question “Can I Do This Task” and remain prominent in theory and research on achievement motivation (e.g., Elliot & Dweck, in press). In general, when children answer this question affirmatively, they try harder, persist longer, perform better and are motivated to select more challenging tasks.

Self-Efficacy Theory

Bandura’s (1977, 1997) construct of self-efficacy is a major part of his broader social cognitive model of learning and development. Bandura defines self-efficacy as individuals' confidence in their ability to organize and execute a given course of action to solve a problem or accomplish a task. He emphasizes human agency and self-efficacy perceptions as major influences on individuals’ achievement strivings, including performance, choice, and persistence. Bandura (1997) characterizes self-efficacy as a multidimensional construct that can vary in strength (i.e., positive or negative), generality (relating to many situations or only a few), and level of difficulty (feeling efficacious for all tasks or only easy tasks).

An important distinction in Bandura’s (1997) model is different kinds of expectancies for success. He distinguished between two kinds of expectancy beliefs: Outcome expectations, or beliefs that certain behaviors, like practice, will lead to certain outcomes, like improved performance, and efficacy expectations, or beliefs about whether one can perform the behaviors necessary to produce the outcome, (e.g., I can practice sufficiently hard to win the next tennis match). Individuals can believe that a certain behavior will produce a certain outcome (outcome expectation), but may not believe they can do that behavior (efficacy expectation). Bandura therefore proposed that individuals' efficacy expectations rather than outcome expectancies are the major determinant of goal setting, activity choice, willingness to expend effort, and persistence (see Bandura, 1997).

Bandura proposed that individuals' perceived self-efficacy is determined primarily by four things: Previous performance (succeeding leads to a stronger sense of personal efficacy); vicarious learning (watching models succeed or fail on tasks); verbal encouragement by others, and one's physiological reactions (over arousal and anxiety/worry leading to a lower sense of personal efficacy). His stress on these four determinants reflects the link of this theory with both behaviorist and social learning traditions. In addition, Bandura acknowledged the influence of causal attributions on people’s self-efficacy. However, Bandura argued that causal attributions only influence behavior through their impact on efficacy beliefs. Bandura (1995) extended the self-efficacy model by discussing how collective efficacy along with individual efficacy also can be a strong influence on achievement strivings.

4

Motivation

The self-efficacy construct has been applied to behavior in many domains including school, health, sports, therapy, occupational choice, and even snake phobia (see Bandura, 1997, for a comprehensive review). By and large, the evidence is very supportive of his theoretical predictions with respect to efficacy’s influences on performance and choice. For example, high personal academic expectations predict subsequent performance, course enrollment and occupational choice (see Bandura, 1997; Schunk & Pajares, 2002; Pajares, 1996); we discuss some of the particular findings in a later section.

Bandura (1997) systematically discussed why he believes self-efficacy theory provides a fuller and richer depiction of the causal relations of self-beliefs to behavior than do other theories focused on self-referent beliefs, including theories of self-concept, locus of control, effectance motivation, control beliefs, perceived competence beliefs, and possible selves, among others. He argued that self-efficacy is defined more precisely and is more task and situation specific than many of these other beliefs, and therefore should relate more strongly to behavior. However, some of the distinctions among these constructs may be less clear than Bandura proposed. For instance, researchers measuring both self-concept and self-efficacy in the same study often have found it difficult to distinguish the two constructs empirically Skaalvik and Bong; 2003; Skaalvik & Rankin, 1996). Bong and Clark (1999) and Skaalvik and Bong (2003) provide a good discussion of conceptual and methodological similarities and differences between self-efficacy and self-concept.

Like many social cognitive-based theories, self-efficacy theory can be criticized for its overly rational and information processing approach. How accurate are individuals at judging their efficacy, how do these calibrations vary over age, and how much are our decisions influenced by a rational judgment of our competence to do an activity? Further, the focus on one major variable as the major predictor of performance and choice perhaps is too limiting.

Self-Concept and Self-Worth TheoriesHarter (1998; this volume) presents comprehensive reviews of the work on self-concept, and so

we only include a brief discussion of it here. Work on self-concept is relevant to this section of the chapter in two main respects. First, many of the most widely used measures of self-concept, such as those developed by Harter (1982) and Marsh (1989) assess perceived competence as the major dimension of self-concept. Thus essentially self-concept as measured by these instruments is beliefs about one’s competence in different areas.

Second, a variety of researchers have examined the relationship between self-concept and achievement, one of the outcomes of great interest to motivation researchers. For many years researchers debated about the causal direction between self-concept and achievement, with some proposing that growth in self-concept produces growth in achievement, and others proposing just the opposite (see Marsh, 1990). Many of the studies that purportedly tested these relations used designs that were not adequate to test fully either position (Marsh & Yeung, 1997). Recently a number of researchers utilizing longitudinal designs found that relations between self-concept and achievement are reciprocal. These reciprocal relations have been observed in studies of children of different ages, including children as young as seven (Guay, Marsh, & Boivin, 2003). These findings (finally) move the field away from the seemingly intractable question of “which causes which” to the more reasonable conclusion that each variable has causal influence on the other. Such findings provide support for the important role of social cognitive and behavioral variables in the study of motivation.

Self-worth, or one’s overall evaluation of one’s worth as a person, continues to be an important variable relevant to motivation as well. Covington and his colleagues (e.g., Covington, 1992; Covington & Dray, 2002) provide the most complete motivational analysis of self-worth, arguing that individuals have a strong desire to protect their self-worth in achievement settings. Schools often focus on the demonstration of relative competence, and Covington argued that to maintain self-worth in school children must protect their competence. Children who do less well than their peers are most at risk for losing self-worth, and so can develop strategies such as not trying or procrastinating as a way to try to protect their sense of competence. These strategies may provide some short-term benefits with respect to self-worth protection, but over the long run actually work against children. Covington and his colleagues have written about ways in which school environments can be changed to lessen the emphasis on relative competence of children, thereby allowing more children to maintain a sense of self-worth in school.

Researchers also continue to study other self-processes that guide, direct, and motivate behaviors in ways other than self-worth maintenance (e.g., Garcia & Pintrich, 1994; Markus & Wurf, 1987). For example, Markus and her colleagues discuss how "possible future selves" motivate behavior. Possible selves, the vision individuals have of themselves in the future, include both hoped-for (I will pass

5

Motivation

geometry) and feared (I will not pass geometry) components. Because possible selves are not identical to one's current self-concept, they motivate the individual by providing goals that the individual tries to attain and outcomes that the individual tries to avoid in order to achieve one's image. Whether or not the possible self is attained depends on many things, one of which is the individual's current perceived competence.Attribution Theory and Theories About Beliefs About Intelligence and Ability

Attribution theory concerns individuals’ explanations (or attributions) for their successes and failures and how these attributions influence subsequent motivation (Graham, 1991; Weiner, 1985, 2004). Weiner and his colleagues identified the most frequently used attributions (ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck), and classified these and other attributions into the different causal dimensions of stability (stable or unstable), locus of control (internal or external), and controllability (under one’s volition or not). For instance, ability is classified as internal, stable, and uncontrollable. Each of these dimensions has important psychological consequences that influence subsequent motivation and behavior. The stability dimension relates most directly to expectancies for success and failure, locus of control to affective reactions to success and failure, and controllability to help giving. For instance, attributing failure to lack of ability leads to lowered expectancies for success, and negative affect like shame (Weiner, 1985; see Eccles et al., 1998) for more detailed review).

Attribution theory was quite dominant in the motivation field for many years, but its influence has waned to an extent recently. Despite this, there still is great interest in the motivation field in perceptions of ability and also of effort. Indeed, some theorists (most notably, Carol Dweck) working in the attribution tradition have become interested in individuals’ beliefs about the nature of ability and the implications of these beliefs for their motivation and effort. Dweck and her colleagues (e.g., Dweck, 2002; Dweck & Leggett, 1988) posited that children can hold one of two views of intelligence or ability. Children holding an entity view of intelligence believe that intelligence is a stable trait. Children holding an incremental view of intelligence believe that intelligence is changeable, so that it can be increased through effort. Note that this differs from the traditional attribution theory view, which is that ability is a stable characteristic. In Dweck’s work there is more than one way to view one’s ability.

Dweck and her colleagues (Dweck, 2002; Dweck & Leggett, 1988) have discussed how children's conceptions of ability and intelligence can have important motivational consequences. Dweck (2002) argued that children holding an entity theory of intelligence are motivated to look smart and protect their sense of ability. Children believing intelligence can change focus on learning and improvement. When children do poorly, believing that one’s ability has a limited capacity means that failure is more debilitating. Some children holding this view will believe they have little chance of ever doing well, because their ability cannot be improved. Children holding this belief can become learned helpless in achievement settings; we discuss learned helplessness later. In contrast, believing effort can improve performance in important ways can mean that children will continue to try even if they are not doing well on a given task (see Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Nicholls, 1984, 1990 for further discussion).

Dweck and Leggett (1988) tied children’s beliefs about intelligence to their achievement goals, as we will see in a later section. Children holding an incremental view of intelligence tend to have mastery or learning goals, whereas children holding an entity view have performance goals. Further, Dweck and Leggett broadened their analysis to other domains, contrasting the relative benefits of incremental vs. entity views about social relationships, and moral development. In each case they argued that the incremental view has many benefits to children (see also Dweck, 2002).

Control Theories

Building on the seminal early work of Rotter (1966) and Crandall, Katkovsky, and Crandall (1965) on internal and external locus of control, theorists have elaborated broader conceptual models of control. Connell (1985), for example, added unknown control as a third control belief category and argued that younger children are particularly likely to use this category. He developed and validated to a scale to assess external control (in terms of "powerful others,"), internal control (in terms of effort and ability), and unknown control for cognitive, physical, social, and general activities. Connell and Wellborn (1991) then integrated control beliefs into the self-determination framework that proposes the fundamental psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness (see Deci & Ryan 1985; Ryan, 1992; Ryan & Deci, 2000a, and further discussion below). They linked control beliefs to competence needs: Children who believe they control their achievement outcomes should feel more competent. They hypothesized that the extent to which these needs are fulfilled is influenced by the

6

Motivation

following characteristics of their family, peer, and school contexts: the amount of structure, the degree of autonomy provided, and the level of involvement in the children's activities.

Ellen Skinner and her colleagues (e.g., Skinner, 1995; Skinner, Chapman, & Baltes, 1988) proposed a more elaborate model of control beliefs. This model includes three critical control-related beliefs: strategy beliefs, control beliefs, and capacity beliefs. Strategy beliefs concern the expectation that particular causes can produce certain outcomes; these causes include Weiner's various causal attributions and Connell's (1985) unknown control. Control beliefs are the expectations individuals have that they can produce desired events, and prevent undesired ones. Capacity beliefs are the expectations that one has access to the means needed to produce various outcomes. Skinner (1995) proposed that control beliefs are a major determinant of actions, leading to outcomes that are interpreted by the individual and subsequently influence their control beliefs, starting the cycle again.

Skinner distinguished her position from self-efficacy theories by noting that self-efficacy theorist discuss connections between agents and means primarily in terms of expectancies that the individual can produce some outcome; thus outcomes are contingent on one's responses. In contrast, she argued that her capacity beliefs relate to potential as well as actual means. Further, an individual can have strong capacity beliefs for different means without believing that any of the means are necessarily effective (see also Ryan, 1992).

Finally, Skinner, Connell and their colleagues have broadened their discussion of perceived control and its influences by developing a model of the relations among context, the self, action, and outcomes (e.g., Connell, Spencer, & Able, 1994; Skinner & Wellborn, 1994). They proposed when contexts are set up in a way allows the needs of competence, relatedness, and autonomy to be supported, then individuals will be engaged more fully in activities, which leads to positive developmental outcomes. Contexts not supportive of these needs lead to disengagement. that the ways in which these needs are fulfilled determine engagement in different activities. When the needs are fulfilled, children will be fully engaged. When one or more of the needs is not fulfilled, children will become disaffected. Connell, Spencer, and Abler (1994) and Skinner and Belmont (1993) conducted studies in classroom settings that supported these linkages. We discuss the implications of these findings in the section on how school contexts influence children’s motivation.

Modern Expectancy - Value Theory

Modern expectancy value theories (e.g., Eccles [Parsons] et al., 1983; Feather, 1982; Heckhausen, 1977; Pekrun, 1993; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000, 2002) are based in Atkinson's (1957, 1964) original expectancy – value model in that they link achievement performance, persistence, and choice most directly to individuals' expectancy-related and task value beliefs. However, they differ from Atkinson’s theory in several ways: First, both the expectancy and value components are more elaborate, and linked to a broader array of psychological and social/cultural determinants. Second, they are grounded more in real-world achievement tasks than the laboratory tasks often used to test Atkinson's theory. We focus here on the ability and expectancy portion of Eccles and her colleagues’ model; see Eccles et al. (1998) for review of some other modern expectancy – value models.

The Eccles et al. expectancy - value model. Eccles (Parsons) and her colleagues elaborated and tested one expectancy - value model of achievement-related choices, (see Eccles, 1987, 1993; Eccles [Parsons] et al., 1983; Eccles & Wigfield, 1995; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000, 2002b). This model focuses on the social psychological influences on choice and persistence. Choices are seen to be influenced by both negative and positive task characteristics and all choices are assumed to have costs associated with them precisely because one choice often eliminates other options. Much of their work focuses on individual differences and gender differences in decisions regarding which courses to take, what careers to seek, and what activities to pursue.

-----------------------------------Insert Figure 1 about here

-----------------------------------

The theoretical model is depicted in Figure 1. Expectancies and values are assumed to directly influence performance, persistence, and task choice. Expectancies and values are assumed to be influenced by task-specific beliefs such as perceptions of competence, perceptions of the difficulty of different tasks, and individuals’ goals and self-schema. These social cognitive variables, in turn, are influenced by individuals' perceptions of other peoples' attitudes and expectations for them, and by their own interpretations of their previous achievement

7

Motivation

outcomes. Individuals' task-perceptions and interpretations of their past outcomes are assumed to be influenced by socializer's behavior and beliefs and by the cultural milieu and unique historical events.

Eccles (Parsons) et al. (1983) defined expectancies for success as children's beliefs about how well they will do on upcoming tasks, either in the immediate or longer-term future. These expectancy beliefs are measured in a manner analogous to measures of Bandura's (1997) personal efficacy expectations: Thus, in contrast to Bandura's claim that expectancy - value theories focus on outcome expectations, the focus in this model is on personal or efficacy expectations.

Eccles (Parsons) et al. (1983) defined beliefs about ability as children's evaluations of their competence in different areas; this definition is similar to those of researchers like Covington (1992), Harter (e.g., Harter, 1982, 1990) and Marsh and his colleagues (e.g., Marsh, 1990a). In measuring ability beliefs Eccles and her colleagues measure individuals’ beliefs about how good they are at a certain activity, how good they are relative to other individuals, and how good they are relative to their performance on other activities. This approach is somewhat different from the way in which self-efficacy often is measured. Many self-efficacy measures do not include the comparative items, but instead focus on individuals’ judgments of their own capabilities (Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 1996).

In this model ability beliefs and expectancies for success are distinguished theoretically in that ability beliefs are seen as broad beliefs about competence in a given domain, in contrast to one's expectancies for success on a specific upcoming task. However, their empirical work has shown that children and adolescents do not distinguish between these two different levels of beliefs (e.g., Eccles & Wigfield, 1995; Eccles, Wigfield, Harold, & Blumenfeld, 1993). Apparently, even though these constructs can be theoretically distinguished from each other, in real-world achievement situations they are highly related and empirically indistinguishable. Eccles and her colleagues have found that children’s expectancy-related beliefs have direct effects on their subsequent performance and indirect effects on their intentions to continue doing activities and actual choices of doing so (e.g., Meece, Wigfield, & Eccles, 1990).

In sum, a variety of theories continue to focus on competence-related beliefs as having a major impact on motivation. As we have seen there are differences in how the competence and control constructs are defined and measured in these theoretical models. These distinctions among the various constructs are important theoretically, but empirically and practically the constructs are highly related. Certainly a further proliferation of these constructs does not seem necessary, and perhaps by examining more closely relations among them we can determine which of them is the most viable.

Theories Concerned With the Question "Do I Want to Do This Task and Why?"

Theories dealing with efficacy, expectancy, and control beliefs provide powerful explanations of individuals' performance on different kinds of achievement tasks. However, these theories do not systematically address another important motivational question: does the individual want to do the task? Even if people are certain they can do a task, they may not want to engage in it, and so they may not be strongly motivated to approach it. Further, individuals often have different purposes or goals for doing different activities, which also can impact their motivation for doing the task. The theories presented next focus on these kinds of issues.

Modern Expectancy - Value Theories: The Importance of Task Value

We discussed in the previous section the expectancy and competence belief portions of expectancy – value models. Here we focus on how the task value part of the model. Eccles and her colleagues have done much of this work. However, it is important to acknowledge Feather’s (1982, 1988, 1992) contributions (see Eccles et al., 1998 for more detailed discussion of his work). Feather looked at broader values and task-specific values in several studies of students’ choices of college majors and activities to pursue. He found values to be strongly predictive of these choices, and also found that students’ expectancies for success and values were positively rather than inversely related.

Eccles, Wigfield, and colleagues' work on subjective task values. Eccles (Parsons) and her colleagues (1983) defined four motivational components of task value: attainment value, intrinsic value, utility value, and cost. They defined attainment value as the personal importance of doing well on the task, and also linked this aspect of task value to the relevance of engaging in a task for confirming or

8

Motivation

disconfirming salient aspects of one's self-schema, such as one’s perceived gender role, ethnic identity, or other salient aspect of self.

Intrinsic value is the enjoyment the individual gets from performing the activity, or the subjective interest the individual has in the subject. This component of value is similar in certain respects to the construct of intrinsic motivation as defined by Harter (1981), and by Deci and his colleagues (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000a), and to the constructs of interest and flow as defined by Csikszentmihalyi (1988), Renninger (1990), and Schiefele (1991). However, like the debates about the different competence-related belief constructs, there have been discussions in the literature about the differences among these related constructs as well.

Utility value is determined by how well a task relates to current and future goals, such as career goals. A task can have positive value to a person because it facilitates important future goals, even if he or she is not interested in task for its own sake. For instance, students often take classes that they do not particularly enjoy but that they need to take to pursue other interests, to please their parents, or to be with their friends. In one sense then this component captures the more "extrinsic" reasons for engaging in a task. But it also relates directly to individuals’ internalized short and long-term goals.

Finally, Eccles and her colleagues identified "cost" as a critical component of value (Eccles [Parsons] et al. 1983; Eccles, 1987). Cost is conceptualized in terms of the negative aspects of engaging in the task, such as performance anxiety and fear of both failure and success as well as the amount of effort that needed to succeed. It also is defined in terms of the lost opportunities that result from making one choice rather than another. When a child chooses to do her homework this may mean she will not have time to instant message her friends, truly a major cost for some children. This aspect of task values has been less studied than the others, even though it likely plays and important role in individuals’ choices. Indeed, Battle and Wigfield (2003) found that the perceived psychological costs of attending graduate school was a negative predictor of college students’ intentions to enroll in graduate school.

Eccles and her colleagues and others (e.g., Bong, 2001) have assessed the links of expectancies and values to performance and choice (see Wigfield & Eccles, 2002b, for review). They have shown that ability self-concepts and expectancies for success directly predict performance in mathematics, English, computer activities, and sport activities, even when previous performance is controlled. Children’s task values predict course plans and enrollment decisions more strongly than do expectancy-related beliefs. Eccles (1994) found that both expectancies and values predict career choices. These results illustrate the importance of looking not only at competence and expectancy beliefs but also achievement values in understanding individuals’ performance and choice.

Valuing particular learning activities now and in the future. Brophy (1999) edited a special issue of the journal Educational Psychologist devoted to the value aspects of learning. In his article in this issue he noted that we still know relatively little about how children’s values and interests for particular learning activities develop, and how different learning opportunities influence children’s valuing of them. He made the intriguing proposal that we should think of a motivational zone of proximal development (ZPD) along with a cognitive ZPD as we consider ways to enhance children’s learning and motivation. When learning activities are within a child’s motivational ZPD they can come to appreciate the importance of the activity and will be more likely to engage in it. If a learning activity is too far above a student’s motivational ZPD the student will be less likely to engage in the activity, or appreciate its importance. Brophy also proposed that the cognitive and motivational ZPD’s may interact to influence students’ learning and engagement, and discussed ways in which children’s valuing of learning can be fostered. We return to these ideas in a later section.

Husman, Lens, and their colleagues have discussed another important values-related construct, future time perspective (FTP) (Husman & Lens, 1999; Lens, 1986), building on earlier work on the role of the future in motivation by theorists such as and Raynor (1982). They noted that much of the work in the motivation field focuses on motivation for immediate tasks and activities. This motivation obviously is important for students’ engagement in learning, but students also know that a major purpose of education is to prepare them for the future. Therefore, if students believe that current educational activities are useful to them in the long run, they are more likely to be motivated to achieve. Husman, Lens and their colleagues have done a series of studies on FTP, showing that when students see the value of educational activities to their future success they are more positively motivated, self-regulated, and achieve higher GPAs. They refer to the instrumentality of these activities to the future as the key predictive variable. With respect to Eccles and colleagues’ definitions of aspects of task value, it

9

Motivation

appears that FTP focuses on the utility and (possibly) the attainment aspects, rather than the interest aspect. However, Husman (1998) has shown some relations of future instrumentality to intrinsic motivation.

In sum, expectancy - value models continue to be prominent. We noted in our previous chapter that research has focused to a much greater extent on expectancy-related rather than value aspects of this model. However, that picture has changed some over the last several years. Yet more work is needed on the nature of children’s achievement values and how they develop. We also need more work on how the links of expectancies and values to performance and choice change across ages (see Eccles, 1993; Wigfield, 1994) and on the links between expectancies and values. Both Eccles (1984) and Bandura (1997) propose a positive association between expectancy related beliefs and task values, and research supports this (e.g., Wigfield et al., 1997). The role of FTP in expectancy – value models also deserves continued study.

Like self-efficacy theory, modern expectancy - value theory can be criticized for emphasizing overly rational cognitive processes leading to motivation and behavior. Such criticisms are likely to be particularly apropos when these models are considered from a developmental perspective (see Wigfield, 1994). However, the impressive body of research showing the relations of expectancy and values to different kinds of performance and choice supports the continuing viability of these models. Furthermore, as conceptualized by Eccles and her colleagues, values are linked to more stable self-schema and identity constructs and choice is not necessarily the result of conscious rational decision-making processes (see Eccles, 1987, Eccles & Harold, 1992). By including affective memories, culturally based stereotypes, and identity-related constructs and processes as part of the theoretical system, Eccles and her colleagues have allowed for less rational and conscious processes in motivated behavioral choices.

Intrinsic Motivation Theories

There is a fundamental distinction in the motivation literature between intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. When individuals are intrinsically motivated they do activities for their own sake and out of interest in the activity. When extrinsically motivated, individuals do activities for instrumental or other reasons, such as receiving a reward (see Sansone & Harackiewicz, 2000). There is continuing debate about the pros and cons of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and a growing consensus that these two constructs should not be treated as polar opposites. Rather, they often both operate, and may even form a continuum.

Much of the work on intrinsic motivation stemmed from White’s (1959) seminal article on effectance motivation, in which he argued persuasively that both people and at least some animals are motivated by curiosity and interest in developing their competence, rather than just by rewards or the satisfaction of basic bodily needs. This influential article had a strong influence on the views of Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, whose self-determination theory of intrinsic motivation is the main focus in this section.

Self-determination theory. Deci, Ryan, and their colleagues’ self-determination theory (SDT) is an organismic theory of development that has a particular focus on the role of motivation in development and learning (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 1985; 2002a; Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991; Ryan & Deci, 2000a). Broadly, self-determined behavior is behavior that originates from the self and, results from the individual utilizing his or her volition. Deci, Ryan, and their colleagues suggest that when individuals’ behavior is self-determined they are psychologically healthier, and tend to be intrinsically motivated. Indeed, they make a specific link between intrinsic motivation and self-determination, arguing that intrinsic motivation is only possible when individuals freely choose their own actions; that is, they are self-determined.

A fundamental aspect of this theory is that Deci, Ryan, and their colleagues propose that there are three basic or fundamental human psychological needs: the need for competence, the need for autonomy, and the need for relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2002a; Ryan & Deci, 2002). In order for healthy development to occur these needs must be met. Further, these needs are a basis for motivation. For instance, the need for competence is the major reason why people seek out optimal stimulation and challenging activities. The need for autonomy refers most directly to volition and self-determination; Deci and Ryan argue that this sense of volition is necessary for optimum motivation. Ryan (1992)

10

Motivation

discussed the importance of distinguishing between competence and autonomy. He argued that models that focus primarily on competence, like self-efficacy theory, do not make this distinction clearly enough. Individuals can act competently and demonstrate their competence but still be doing so under the control of others. Ryan compared such actions to those of a robot, rather than a self-determined individual, and argued that intrinsic motivation only occurs when individuals are both autonomous and competent. As we will see, the proposal that autonomy is a basic human need has led to much interesting research on topics such as choice and how providing children and adults with choice influences their intrinsic motivation. Relatedness refers to the need to be connected with others. This need was added to the theory after the other two, and reflects Deci and Ryan’s beliefs that individuals must have strong connections to others for optimum development to occur. In their view autonomy does not imply total independence; connections with others are key to optimum development.

Deci, Ryan, and colleagues go beyond the extrinsic - intrinsic motivation dichotomy in their discussion of internalization, the process of transferring the regulation of behavior from outside to inside the individual (see Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999; Grolnick, Gurland, Jacob, & Decourcey, 2002). They developed a taxonomy to describe different types of motivation involved in the process of going from external to more internalized regulation of motivation. This taxonomy forms a continuum. At one extreme is amotivation, which as the name implies means an absence of motivation to act. Next are several types of extrinsic motivation that range from least to most autonomous. In order these are external, or regulation coming from outside the individual; introjected, or internal regulation based on feelings that he or she should or has to do the behavior; identified, or internal regulation of behavior that is based on the utility of that behavior (e.g., studying hard to get grades to get into college), and finally, integrated, or regulation based on what the individual thinks is valuable and important to the self. Each of these levels also is associated with different kinds of motivation. For instance, extrinsic rewards are most salient for external regulation, and at each subsequent level motivation become more internalized.

Deci, Ryan, and their colleagues have developed scales to measure these different levels of regulation They have tested their continuum idea by looking at how related the different kinds of motivation are. For instance, Ryan and Connell (1989) assessed children’s external, introjected, identified, and intrinsic reasons for doing schoolwork, and found that these correlations formed a simplex pattern (see also Vallerand, Pelletier, Blais, Brière, Senécal, & Vallières, 1993). That is, the levels of regulation closer to one another in the continuum were more highly related than those further apart, which they took as evidence for their placement on the continuum. Further, they found that the more extrinsically motivated the students were the less invested they were in their schoolwork.

One major focus of Deci, Ryan, and their colleagues’ research and theorizing has been how extrinsic rewards can undermine intrinsically motivated behavior. They call this portion of their theory Cognitive Evaluation Theory. They and others (e.g., Lepper & Green, 1978) described different conditions under which rewards can be undermining; the most notable is when rewards are controlling, which reduces the individual’s perceptions of autonomy over their own learning. When rewards provide individuals with information about how they are doing rather than focus on controlling them, the undermining effects do not occur. In 1994 Cameron and Pierce published a meta-analysis of this research in which they questioned the strength of these undermining effects, arguing that they occurred only in very limited circumstances if at all. This article led to a series of commentaries and reactions and further meta analyses of the findings regarding the undermining effects of rewards on intrinsically motivated behavior, with many claims and counter-claims about the adequacy of the meta-analytic techniques used and ways of parsing the findings (see Deci et al., 1999; Lepper & Henderlong, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000b; Sansone & Harackiewicz, 2000 for a summary of this debate). We believe that Deci, Ryan, and their colleagues have replied effectively to Cameron and Pierce’s various arguments against the undermining effects of extrinsic motivation. Yet this debate was useful because it served to clarify the conditions under which extrinsic motivators do undermine intrinsically motivated behaviors, and so moved the field ahead in important ways.

SDT has been a dominant theoretical model and one that has generated a great deal of research. It is a broad model that encompasses a variety of constructs, and integrates many important issues with respect to the development of motivation. The theory, however, has been the subject of some criticism. A number of questions have been raised about Deci and Ryan’s contention that there are three basic psychological needs (see Pintrich, 2003). Other questions have been raised about the universality of

11

Motivation

these needs and whether they operate similarly in different cultures. For instance, in cultures defined as less individualistic and more collectivist does the need for autonomy take on the same importance? This question currently is the focus of a great deal of research (Reeve, Deci, & Ryan, 2004). There also has been debate within SDT on the role of choice in helping children fulfill their need for autonomy (Reeve, Nix, & Hamm, 2003). Finally, although the continuum from extrinsic to intrinsic motivation is intriguing, there is some concern that intrinsic motivation as defined in this way only describes a very limited set of activities that people do in the normal course of their daily lives. This perhaps constrains intrinsic motivation too much.

Flow theory. Csikszentmihalyi (1988) discusses intrinsically motivated behavior in terms of the immediate subjective experience that occurs when people are engaged in the activity. Interviews with climbers, dancers, chess players, basketball players, and composers revealed that these activities yield a specific form of experience - labelled flow - characterized by: (1) holistic feelings of being immersed in, and of being carried by, an activity, (2) merging of action and awareness, (3) focus of attention on a limited stimulus field, (4) lack of self-consciousness, and (5) feeling in control of one's actions and the environment. Flow is only possible when people feel that the opportunities for action in a given situation match their ability to master the challenges. The challenge of an activity may be something concrete or physical like the peak of a mountain to be scaled, or it can be something abstract and symbolic, like a set of musical notes to be performed, a story to be written, or a puzzle to be solved. Further research has shown that both the challenges and skills must be relatively high before a flow experience becomes possible (Massimini & Carli, 1988).

At first sight, the theories of Deci and Ryan and Csikszentmihalyi seem to be very different. Deci and Ryan (1985, 2002a) explain intrinsic motivation by assuming innate, basic needs, whereas Csikszentmihalyi stresses subjective experience. We suggest, however, that this difference reflects two sides of the same coin. As Schneider (1996) has argued, one has to distinguish between immediate reasons (e.g., enjoyment) and ultimate reasons of behavior (e.g., survival). Intrinsically motivated behavior can be conducive to ultimate goals even though the actor is only motivated by immediate incentives. A typical case is exploratory or play behavior. Both types of behavior help to increase an individual's competence but they are usually performed because they are exciting, pleasurable, or enjoyable. This distinction between immediate and ultimate causes of behavior makes it possible to reconcile the positions of Deci and Ryan and Csikszentmihalyi. Deci and Ryan (1985) focus on ultimate reasons of behavior, whereas Csikszentmihalyi (1988) focuses mainly on immediate reasons. Csikszentmihalyi and Massimini (1985) have suggested that the experience of flow is a reward that ensures that individuals will seek to increase their competence. According to Csikszentmihalyi, the repeated experience of flow is only possible when individuals seek out increasingly challenging tasks and expand their competencies to meet these challenges. Thus, the experience of flow should reinforce behaviors underlying development.

Individual difference theories of intrinsic motivation. Until recently intrinsic motivation researchers like Deci and Ryan and Csikszentmihalyi have dealt with conditions, components, and consequences of intrinsic motivation without making a distinction between intrinsic motivation as a state versus intrinsic motivation as a trait-like characteristic. However, interest in trait-like individual differences in intrinsic motivation has increased recently, particularly among educational psychologists (see Gottfried, 1985, 1990; Gottfried, Fleming, & Gottfried, 2001; Harter, 1981; Nicholls, 1984, 1989; Schiefele, 1996; Schiefele & Schreyer, 1994). These researchers define this enduring intrinsic motivational orientations in terms of three components: (1) preference for hard or challenging tasks, (2) learning that is driven by curiosity or interest, and (3) striving for competence and mastery. The second component is most central to the idea of intrinsic motivation. Both preference for hard tasks and striving for competence can be linked to either extrinsic or more general need achievement motivation. Nonetheless, empirical findings suggest that the three components are highly correlated. In addition, evidence suggests that high levels of trait-like intrinsic motivation facilitate positive emotional experience and well-being (Matsumoto & Sanders, 1988; Ryan & Deci, 2000a), self-esteem (Ryan, Connell & Deci, 1985), high academic achievement (Cordova & Lepper, 1996; Schiefele & Schreyer, 1994), creativity (e.g., Hennessey, 2000), self-regulation and persistence (Cordova & Lepper, 1996; Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand, & Brière, 2001; Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992; Schiefele & Schreyer, 1994). As a consequence, many have suggested that the development of an intrinsic motivational orientation

12

Motivation

should be fostered in the home and the classroom (e.g., Brophy, 1999; Dewey, 1913; Lepper & Chabay, 1985).

Interest Theories

Closely related to the notion of intrinsic motivation is work on the concept of “interest” (Alexander, Kulikowich, & Jetton, 1994; Hidi, 2001; Krapp, 2002; Renninger, 2000; Renninger, Hidi, & Krapp, 1992; Schiefele, 1991, 2001; Tobias, 1994). Hidi and Harackiewicz (2001) propose that interest is more specific than intrinsic motivation, which is a broader motivational characteristic (see also Deci, 1992, 1998). Researchers studying interest differentiate between individual and situational interest. Individual interest is a relatively stable evaluative orientation towards certain domains; situational interest is an emotional state aroused by specific features of an activity or a task. Two aspects or components of individual interest are distinguishable (Schiefele, 1996a, 2001): feeling-related and value-related valences. Feeling-related valences refer to the feelings that are associated with an object or an activity itself - feelings like involvement, stimulation, or flow. Value-related valences refer to the attribution of personal significance or importance to an object. In addition, both feeling-related and value-related valences are directly related to the object rather than to the relation of this object to other objects or events. For example, if students associate mathematics with high personal significance because mathematics can help them get prestigious jobs, then we would not speak of interest. Although feeling-related and value-related valences are highly correlated (Schiefele, 1996a), it is useful to differentiate between them because some individual interests are likely based primarily on feelings, while others’ interests are more likely to be based on personal significance (see Eccles, 1984; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992). Further research is necessary to validate this assumption.

Much of the research on individual interest has focused on its relation to the quality of learning (see Alexander et al., 1994; Hidi, 2001; Renninger, Ewen, & Lasher, 2002; Schiefele, 1996a,b, 1999). In general, there are significant but moderate relations between interest and text learning. More importantly, interest is more strongly related to indicators of deep-level learning (e.g., recall of main ideas, coherence of recall, responding to deeper comprehension questions, representation of meaning) than to surface-level learning (e.g., responding to simple questions, verbatim representation of text; Schiefele, 1996b, 1999; Schiefele & Krapp, 1996). Findings by Ainley, Hidi, and Berndorff (2002) and Hidi (2001) suggest that attentional processes, affect, and persistence mediate the effects of interest on text learning.

There is also ample evidence that subject matter interest is positively related to school achievement (cf. Schiefele, Krapp, & Winteler, 1992). Recent studies suggest that interest particularly predicts achievement when there is a context that allows for choice. Specifically, Köller, Baumert, and Schnabel (2001) found that interest in mathematics predicts achievement only at higher grade levels when students have a choice between more or less advanced courses. The “effect” of interest on achievement was partly mediated by choice of course level. However, there was also a direct path from interest to achievement even when controlling for prior achievement.

Most of the research on situational interest has focused on the characteristics of academic tasks that create interest, (e.g., Hidi, 2001; Schraw & Lehman, 2001). Among others, the following text features were found to arouse situational interest: personal relevance, novelty, vividness, and comprehensibility (Chen, Darst, & Pangrazi, 2001; Schraw, Bruning, & Svoboda, 1995; Wade, Buxton, & Kelly, 1999). Empirical evidence has provided strong support for the relation between situational interest and text comprehension and recall (see reviews by Hidi, 2001; Schiefele, 1996a, 1999; Wade, 1992).

Goal Theories

Work on achievement goals and goal orientations has flourished since the publication of our previous chapter. This work can be organized into three relatively distinct areas (see Pintrich, 2000a). One group of researchers has focused on the properties of goals for specific learning activities. These researchers (e.g., Bandura, 1986; Schunk, 1991) focus on goals’ proximity, specificity, and level of challenge and have shown that specific, proximal, and somewhat challenging goals promote both self-efficacy and improved performance. A second group of researchers defined and investigated broader goal orientations students have to their learning,

13

Motivation

focusing primarily on three broad orientations: a mastery or learning orientation, an ego or performance orientation, and a work avoidant orientation. These orientations refer to broader approaches children take to their learning, rather than goals for specific activities, although of course goal orientations can also influence the approach one takes to a specific task. A third group focuses on the content of children’s goals, proposing that there are many different kinds of goals individuals can have in achievement settings, including both academic and social goals (e.g., Ford, 1992; Wentzel, 1991b). We focus in this section on the work of the latter two groups.

Goal orientation theory. Researchers (e.g., Ames, 1992; Blumenfeld, 1992; Butler, 1993; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Maehr & Midgley, 1996; Nicholls, 1984) initially distinguished two broad goal orientations that students can have toward their learning. One orientation, called a learning, task involved, or mastery goal orientation, means that the child is focused on improving their skills, mastering material, and learning new things. Questions such as "How can I do this task?" and "What will I learn?" reflect task-involved goals. A second goal orientation, called performance or ego orientation, means that the child focuses on maximizing favorable evaluations of their competence and minimizing negative evaluations of competence. Nicholls and his colleagues (e.g., Nicholls, Cobb, Yackel, Wood, & Wheatley, 1990) and Meece (1991, 1994) also have described a work avoidant goal orientation, which means that the child does not wish to engage in academic activities.

The different terms used to label these goal orientations occurred because different researchers were working on them simultaneously, with each having a somewhat distinctive view of each orientation (see Pintrich, 2000a, and Thorkildsen & Nicholls, 1998, for discussion of the intellectual roots of different researchers’ definitions of these goal orientations). For instance, Dweck and Leggett (1988) proposed that children’s goal orientations stem from their theories of intelligence that were described earlier. Children believing intelligence is malleable tend to hold a learning (mastery) goal orientation, and children adopting the entity view take on performance goals. By contrast, Ames (1992) focused primarily on classroom antecedents of these goal orientations, rather than characteristics of children, which implies that goal orientations are more a product of context rather than the person, and so may vary more widely across different achievement situations. We acknowledge that the different terminology used by these theorists reflects some important distinctions in the conceptualization of these” goal orientations, but also believe that the similarities are stronger than the distinctions between them (see Midgley, Kaplan, & Middleton, 2001, and Pintrich, 2000a for a similar conclusion). We will use the terms mastery and performance goal orientations in this chapter.

One of the newer directions in goal orientation theory is further differentiation of these two broad goal orientations into approach and avoidance components. This occurred first for the performance goal orientation, beginning with work by Elliot and Harackiewicz (1996) and Skaalvik (1997), among others. These further distinctions emerged for two main reasons. Empirically, findings concerning the outcomes of having a performance goal orientation were somewhat contradictory, leading researchers to wonder why this occurred. Theoretically, Elliot and Harackiewicz noted that traditional achievement motivation theories, such as Atkinson’s (1957) expectancy-value model, included both approach and avoidance motives. By contrast, most modern theories focus primarily on the approach aspect, thus overlooking the importance of avoidance motivation.

Therefore, Elliot and Harackiewicz (1996) proposed approach and avoidance aspects of performance goals, as did Skaalvik (1997). Performance-approach goals refer to the students’ desire to demonstrate competence and outperform others. Performance-avoidance goals involve the desire to avoid looking incompetent. Researchers began to disentangle the effects of these two kinds of performance orientations. As we will see later, there is evidence that performance-approach goals can have a positive impact on different outcomes such as grades, whereas the impact of performance-avoidance goals is nearly always negative.

Elliot (1999; Elliott & McGregor, 2001) and Pintrich (2000c) proposed that the mastery goal orientation also may be divided into approach and avoid components. Elliot and McGregor stated that the assumption likely was made that mastery goals always referred to approach situations, rather than avoidance situations, which they believe does not provide a full characterization of situations to which mastery goals apply. They argued that mastery-avoidance goals include such things as working to avoid misunderstanding, or the use of standards to not be wrong when doing an achievement activity. As Elliot and McGregor and Pintrich both note, perfectionists may be characterized as holding mastery avoidance goals. Elliot and McGregor (2001) developed items to assess mastery avoidant goals, and found (in a study of college students) that these items factored separately from items measuring the other three kinds of goal orientations. The antecedents (as perceived by the participants) of mastery-avoidance goals were not as positive as antecedents of mastery-approach goals. These results are intriguing, but much more work is needed to establish the meaningfulness of this new category.

14

Motivation

There is a growing body of research documenting the consequences of adopting one or the other of these goal orientations. Researchers have used a variety of methodologies in this work, including classroom observations (Ames & Archer, 1988), interviews (Dowson & McInerney, 2003), and questionnaire-based studies, often using Midgley and her colleagues’ Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scale (PALS) (Midgley et al., 1998). Experimental manipulations of students’ goal orientations also have been done, by introducing achievement tasks in a way that fosters either mastery or performance goals (e.g., Graham & Golan, 1991). The results concerning mastery orientation are quite consistent and positive (see E. Anderman, Austin, & Johnson, 2002; Pintrich, 2000a, c; Urdan, 1997, for review). When children are mastery oriented they are more highly engaged in learning, use deeper cognitive strategies, and are intrinsically motivated to learn. Elliot and McGregor (2001) found that mastery-avoidance goals are associated with a mixture of outcomes, including subsequent test anxiety, mastery-approach goals, and performance-approach goals. Based on this and other work researchers have proposed that schools should work to foster mastery goal orientations rather than performance goal orientations, and school reform efforts to do just that have been undertaken (e.g., Maehr & Midgley, 1996). We discuss some of this work in a later section of this chapter.

As noted above the research on performance goals is somewhat less consistent, in part because of the methodological confounding of performance avoidance and approach goals. When these two aspects of performance goals are unconfounded, researchers find that performance avoid goals have negative consequences for students motivation and learning (e.g., Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Skaalvik, 1997). Performance approach goals relate positively to academic self-concept, task value, and performance (at least in college students), but not to intrinsic motivation to learn (see Harackiewicz, Barron, Pintrich, Elliot, & Thrash, 2002, for review).

The distinction between performance approach and avoid goals, and evidence showing that performance-approach goals relate to positive motivational and achievement outcomes, led Harckiewicz, Barron, & Elliot (1998) and Pintrich (2000a,c) to call for a revision of goal theory that acknowledges the positive effects of performance-approach goals, and also the need to look at how different goals relate to different outcomes. Traditional (or normative, to use the term adopted by Harackiewicz et al) goal theory argues for the benefits of mastery goals and the costs of performance goals. Pintrich (2000b) studied 8 th grade students’ goal orientations, and identified four groups of children crossing high and low mastery and performance goal orientations. He found that students with a combination of high mastery and high performance-approach goal orientations were similar with respect to a variety of motivational outcomes to a group of students who were high in mastery but low in performance goal orientations. This finding does not support the normative theory view that only mastery goal orientations lead to positive developmental outcomes, and was one impetus for the call for a revised goal orientation theory.

Midgley et al. (2001) disputed these claims, arguing that the costs of performance avoidance goals are clearly documented and that the benefits of performance approach goals are not as clearly established in the literature. They also noted that performance approach goals may benefit some students (boys, older students) rather than others (girls, younger students), and that we do not yet have enough information about how performance-approach goals operate in other groups of children. They also pointed out that benefits of performance goals identified by researchers may be in part due to the focus of our educational system on standards, assessments, and performance rather than effort and improvement, which they argue is a better approach to schooling.

In response, Harackiewicz et al. (2002) argued that the evidence for the positive effects of performance-approach goals is clearer than Midgley et al. stated that it was, and continued to propose the multiple goal perspective (that both mastery and performance goals can benefit different educational outcomes) is the more viable approach to goal orientation theory. They noted a number of areas of research that now are needed to assess each of these perspectives. In a final response Kaplan and Middleton (2002) took a broader perspective and focused on what the purposes of schooling should be. In their view the purposes of schooling should be knowledge growth and the fostering of a love of learning, rather than performance per se, and thus for them a mastery orientation continues to be more desirable, even if performance-approach goals relate to some positive educational outcomes in our current educational system (see also Roeser, 2004a, for further elaboration of these ideas). So this debate appears to be at different levels. At one level is the concern for how the specific goal orientations relate to different kinds of outcomes within our current educational system. The second level concerns what that system should focus on, rather than an acceptance of the current system and its strong performance emphasis.

15

Motivation

This healthy debate among goal orientation theorists should move the field ahead, as more research is done to look at the benefits and costs of different kinds of goal orientations, and as we consider further the nature and purposes of schooling and their influence on the development of students’ motivation. We believe the move beyond the perhaps too simplistic two-goal orientation theory is welcome, but acknowledge that more work is needed both on performance approach and (especially) mastery-avoidance goals to evaluate their effects, and in the case of mastery-avoid goals, document their existence. Work on achievement goal orientations also needs to look more carefully at how different achievement domains (math, science, English) might impact achievement goal orientations and their effects (see Meece, 1991, 1994).

The goal content approach: Academic and social goals. Building on Ford’s (1992) work defining a taxonomy of human goals, Wentzel has examined the multiple goals of children in achievement settings (see Wentzel, 1991b, 1993, 2002b, for review of this work). Her view on goals differs from the goal orientation theorists in that she focuses on the content of children's goals to guide and direct behavior, rather than the criteria a person uses to define success or failure (i.e., mastery versus performance). In this sense, these goals are like the goals and self-schema that relate to attainment value hierarchies in the Eccles et al. expectancy value. However, she does view these goals as contributing to children’s competence in particular situations. Wentzel primarily has focused on academic and social goals and their relations to a variety of outcomes.

Wentzel has demonstrated that both social and academic goals relate to adolescents' school performance and behavior (Wentzel, 2002b). For instance, she found that the goals related to school achievement include seeing oneself as successful, dependable, wanting to learn new things, and wanting to get things done. Higher-achieving students have higher levels of both social responsibility and achievement goals than lower achieving students. Similarly, Wentzel (1994) documented the association among middle school children’s pro-social goals of helping others, academic pro-social goals like sharing learning with classmates, peer social responsibility goals like following through on promises made to peers, and academic social responsibility goals like doing what the teacher says to do. Pro-social goals (particularly academic pro-social goals) related positively to peer acceptance. She also found positive relations between prosocial goals and children’s grades and even IQ scores (Wentzel, 1989, 1996).

While it appears valuable to have multiple goals, Wentzel (2002b) discussed the difficulty some children may have coordinating these multiple goals. Can students manage a variety of social and academic goals? This question also applies to the multiple goal perspective in goal orientation theory. Having multiple goals may be especially challenging for younger children, whose resources to manage such goals may be limited.

Building in part on Wentzel’s work researchers increasingly are interested in how social relations and the social context influences students’ goals and other aspects of motivation (e.g., L. Anderman, 1997; Patrick, 1997; A. Ryan, 2001). L. Anderman (1997) proposed a number of mechanisms by which students’ social experiences in school relate to their motivation. These include the extent to which students feel a part of the school or at least some activities in the school, how much they endorse social responsibility goals, and the kinds of relationships they have with peers. We return to some of these points in a later section of this chapter.

Summary

Work on interest, intrinsic motivation, values, and goals continues to thrive, and the knowledge base in these areas is beginning to rival that on competence-related beliefs, although it still lags behind to a degree. We need additional work on the relations among these various constructs, and a closer look at the developmental trajectories that they take.

Theories Concerned With The Question "What Do I Have To Do

To Succeed On This Task?"

We discussed in the previous version of our chapter that researchers were becoming increasingly interested in linkages between motivation, self-regulation, and cognitive processes. This work has grown over the last several years. We discuss in this section work on the following topics: 1) motivation and the regulation of

16

Motivation

behavior; 2) motivation and volition; 3) relations of motivation to cognitive processes and conceptual change; and 4) academic help seeking.

Social Cognitive Theories of Self-Regulation and Motivation

Reviewing the extensive literature on the self-regulation of behavior is beyond the scope of the chapter (see Boekarts, Pintrich, & Zeidner, 2000, for a comprehensive review of models of self-regulation from a variety of different fields in psychology). These models take a variety of different conceptual and methodological approaches. There are two approaches to self-regulation that relate most directly to our focus on the development of motivation in this chapter. First is self-determination theory; we mention it only briefly here because it was discussed earlier. This theory proposes that individuals are intrinsically motivated when they are self-determined, or are the source of their own behavior (Deci & Ryan, 2002; Ryan & Deci, 2002). Ryan and Deci discuss the internalization process, which essentially involves the individual taking greater control over her own behavior, which leads to greater intrinsic motivation. Grolnick et al. (2002) review the development of self-determination and how it is influenced by experiences at home and in school; we discuss some of this work in the socialization section of this chapter.

A second approach to self-regulation particularly relevant to this chapter is the social cognitive perspective, and there are several models in this tradition. We focus on the recent work of Pintrich, Schunk, Zimmerman, and their colleagues, because they directly link motivation to self-regulation; see Schunk and Zimmerman (1994) and Eccles et al. (1998) for review of earlier work on self-regulation.

Zimmerman (1989) described self-regulated students as being metacognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active in their own learning processes and in achieving their own goals and active in their use of cognitive strategies for learning; thus motivation plays and important part in self-regulation. Recent social cognitive models of self-regulation (e.g., Pintrich, 2000c; Schunk & Ertmer, 2000; Zimmerman, 2000) divide the regulation of behavior into three phases: forethought, performance and volitional control, and self-reflection, and we focus her on how motivation relates to each of these phases. Forethought involves planning one’s behavior, and Zimmerman stated that there are two major aspects of forethought, analyzing the task or activity that needs to be done, and motivating oneself to undertake the activity. Zimmerman focused on goal setting, self-efficacy, and interest and value as the key aspects of motivation during this phase. When students are efficacious about their ability to regulate their behavior, set goals and commit to them, and value what they are doing, they will be more likely to begin an activity. Zimmerman also noted that having a mastery goal orientation might facilitate task engagement and self-regulation of achievement behaviors.

Performance of course refers to self-regulation as the individual actually is doing the activity. What is crucial for the regulation of performance is focusing attention on the activity and monitoring how one is doing, through processes of self-observation. Schunk and Ertmer (2000) also noted that maintaining self-efficacy and monitoring progress towards the achievement of goals are important motivational aspects of the performance process. During self-reflection and reaction individuals interpret the outcomes of their activities by making attributions for their success and failure, and evaluating whether they achieved their goals. Affective reactions are likely here as well. When individuals achieve the expected outcome they experience satisfaction, but when they don’t various negative affective reactions can occur (see Pintrich, 2000c).

Wigfield and Eccles (2002) discussed the particular roles achievement values may take in different aspects of the regulation of behavior. They argued that the social cognitive models of self-regulation focus primarily on self-efficacy and goals as the motivational factors influencing self-regulation, although some attention has been paid to values. Schunk and Ertmer (2002) discussed how the value of an activity is an important part of the forethought or pre-engagement phase of self-regulation; when activities are valued students will devote more time both to planning for them and doing them. Rheinberg, Vollmeyer, & Rollett, (2000) specified different questions individuals pose to themselves concerning potential links of their actions to desired outcomes. One of the questions is a “values” question: are the consequences of the action important enough to me? If the answer is yes the individual more likely will undertake the action. If no, then engagement is less likely. Wigfield and Eccles discussed two additional roles values may play in the regulation of behavior. Values may help individuals determine which of different (and potentially conflicting) goals to pursue. During the self-reflection phase after an activity is completed students’ valuing of the activity likely influences their likelihood to continue to engage in the activity.

17

Motivation

Wolters (2003) discussed the importance of regulating one’s motivation along with regulating one’s behavior and cognition (see also Pintrich, 2000c). He posited that motivational regulation is one part of the broader self-regulatory process. The regulatory aspect in this instance refers to individuals’ cognitive awareness of and control over their own motivation, but Wolters noted that motivation regulation and motivation itself likely are strongly related. He argued further that the regulation of motivation might be most needed when individuals encounter obstacles as they are attempting to do various achievement activities, even activities that they initially were quite motivated to do. Wolters discussed a variety of motivation regulation strategies. These include creating consequences for one’s own behavior (when I finish my homework I can play the videogame I want to play), attempting to modify activities one is doing to make them more interesting, and engaging in goal-oriented self talk (reminding oneself of the purposes for which the activity was undertaken in the first place), among others, including managing one’s efficacy perceptions and controlling the kinds of attributions for success and failure that are made. One interesting regulatory strategy is self-handicapping, which involves things like waiting until the last minute to study for a test, and setting up other obstacles to performance. Although this regulatory strategy may provide students with good excuses for not doing well, its potential costs likely outweigh its benefits. Another potentially less positive strategy is called defensive pessimism, which refers to individuals believing that they are very unprepared and set to do poorly on an exam or assignment, to spur them to work harder. Defensive pessimists often perform well, but the desirability of this strategy is questionable.

In sum, social cognitive models of self-regulation consider many of the aspects of motivation that we are reviewing in this chapter, including self-efficacy, goals, achievement values, and interest. Researchers are beginning to focus on the regulation of motivation and how it fits into the broader models of self-regulation of achievement behaviors. It should be clear from our discussion that self-regulation of behavior and motivation processes require relatively sophisticated cognitive processes, which can be problematic for young children (see Pintrich & Zusho, 2002, Wigfield & Eccles, 2002, and Zimmerman, 2000, for a discussion of the development of self-regulatory processes). We return to this issue below.

Theories Of Motivation and Volition

The term "volition" refers to both the strength of will needed to complete a task and diligence of pursuit (Corno, 1993, in press; Kuhl, 2000). Zimmerman (2000) and other theorists proposing social cognitive models of self-regulation include volition as part of the regulation of achievement behavior, but Corno argued that volition is a broader concept than self-regulation because volition includes personality characteristics, aptitudes, and other cognitive processes (see also Corno & Kanfer, 1993). Researchers studying volition also argue for a clear distinction between motivation and volition; motivation brings the individual to an activity, but volitional processes carry her through the activity (see Corno, in press).

Kuhl (1987) proposed several specific volitional strategies to explain persistence in the face of distractions and other opportunities; including cognitive, emotional, motivational, and environmental control strategies (see Eccles et al., 1998, for review of these strategies. Corno (1993) provided several examples of the volitional challenges students face, including coordinating multiple demands and desires like doing homework, watching TV, or calling a friend; dealing with the many distractions in any particular context like a classroom; and clarifying often vaguely-specified goals and assignments.

There currently is some debate between volitional theorists and social cognitive self-regulation theorists (see Corno, in press; Wolters, 2003; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2002). The social cognitive theorists argue that the “hard” distinction between motivation as the intention to act and volition as the control of action is drawn to strongly by volitional theorists. Wolters (2003) notes that the regulation of motivation can occur both in the phase leading up to action and the action phase itself, and so sees regulatory process as integrated across both. Corno (in press) continued to argue for the motivation – volition distinction, but stated that volition can involve reassessing motivational goals as well.

Theories Linking Motivation and Cognition

Motivation researchers increasingly are interested in how motivation and cognition influence one another (see Eccles et al., 1998, for work done on this topic in the 1980s and early 1990s). In a seminal article, Pintrich,

18

Motivation

Marx, and Boyle (1993) discussed links of motivation and cognition, with specific reference to conceptual change. They argued that traditional “cold” cognitive psychological models of conceptual change, which focus on conceptual change resulting from dissatisfaction with one’s current conceptions, and the intelligibility, plausibility, and fruitfulness of the new conception, do not consider the motivational and contextual factors that influence conceptual development. They identified a variety of contextual and motivational factors that can influence this process (see also Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992); we briefly note some of the motivation factors here.

Pintrich et al. (1993) focused on goal orientation, interest and value, and self-efficacy as motivational factors influencing conceptual change. They reviewed work showing that mastery goal orientations relate to deeper cognitive processing and more sophisticated cognitive strategy use. As discussed earlier, students’ valuing of achievement relates to their choices of activities, and when they are interested in an activity deeper cognitive processing occurs. Similarly, students with higher self-efficacy use more elaborate and better cognitive strategies (see Schunk, 1991). Each of these motivational beliefs and values can be influenced by the classroom context, a point we return to in a later section. Based on this Pintrich et al concluded that conceptual change is a hot rather than a cold process.

This work clearly indicates motivation’s role in conceptual change and engagement in cognitive processing. However, Pintrich (2003) discussed that there still is little information on motivation’s relations to basic cognitive activity such as the activation, acquisition, and development of knowledge, and called for research in this area. He also argued that motivational beliefs might be represented cognitively in similar ways to other kinds of content knowledge (see Winne & Marx, 1989 for a similar view that motivational thoughts and beliefs are governed by the basic principles of cognitive psychology). Cognitive psychologists have developed detailed depictions of knowledge representation, and some of these likely could be applied to motivational beliefs. We have focused so far on motivation’s relations to cognition; Pintrich also argued that cognition likely influences motivation and that researchers need to address these complex and likely cyclical relations.Academic Help Seeking

Some researchers have argued that another important aspect of self-regulation and volition is knowing when help is needed (Newman, 2002; A. Ryan, Pintrich, & Midgley, 2001). Children learn to do many tasks on their own; indeed, schools and parents often encourage children to become independent and self-reliant. However, there are times when children need help. Both Nelson Le Gall and her colleagues (e. g., Nelson Le Gall & Glor-Shieb, 1985; Nelson Le Gall & Jones, 1990) and Newman and his colleagues (e. g., Newman, 1994, 2002; Newman & Goldin, 1990; Newman & Schwager, 1995) have articulated models of children's help-seeking that stress the difference between appropriate and inappropriate help seeking. Appropriate help seeking (labeled instrumental help-seeking by Nelson-Le Gall and adaptive help-seeking by Newman) involves deciding that one doesn't understand how to complete a problem after having tried to solve it on one’s own, figuring out what and whom to ask, developing a good question to get the needed help, and processing the information received appropriately in order to complete the problem-solving task.

Adaptive help seeking can foster motivation by keeping children engaged in an activity when they experience difficulties. However, many children, and often the children that need the most help, are unwilling to ask for it in many classrooms, likely because they are concerned that asking for help will make them appear to others that they lack competence (A. Ryan, Gheen, & Midgley, 1998; A. Ryan et al., 2001). There are developmental differences here as well; younger children are more likely to ask for help than are older children. Newman (2002) described conditions under which children are more or less likely to ask for help; these conditions include both characteristics of children and of the learning environments they experience. When children are self-regulated and perceive they are competent they are more likely to ask for help when it is needed. Teachers can facilitate help seeking by showing concern for children; focusing on mastery goals, improvement and effort; and facilitating peer collaboration in the classroom.

SummaryWork on links between motivation, self-regulation, and cognition has burgeoned over the last

several years. This integrative work is crucial for a better understanding of the learning process and children’s achievement, and likely will continue to grow. Developmental issues remain front and center in this work, as the complex regulation of achievement and other kinds of behaviors poses many challenges for young children in particular. We need more information about the development of these processes and models that take account of them.

19

Motivation

THE DEVELOPMENT OF MOTIVATION: WITHIN-PERSON CHANGE AND

GROUP DIFFERENCES

Developmental and educational psychologists have focused on two major developmental questions: (1) How do the different beliefs, values, and goals defined in the different theories develop during childhood and adolescence? and (2) What explains the emergence of individual differences in motivation? Different sources of influence have been considered: Within-person changes resulting from growth and maturation in cognitive processing, emotional development, or other individual characteristics; and socially-mediated developmental changes resulting from systematic age-related changes in the social contexts children experience at home, in school and among peers as they grow up; and socially-mediated influences that differ across individuals and contexts. Of course, these different sources often interact with one another but the nature of this interaction is rarely studied. Consequently, we have organized our discussion of the development of motivation and of individual differences in motivation around these broad categories of influence. First, we present work on within-person changes, beginning with work on children's early self-evaluations, and then describe the work on within-person changes in the constructs discussed thus far. We also include a consideration of the development of certain motivational problems. Also discussed in this section are the development of sex and ethnic differences in children’s motivation. We include this work in this section because they emerge over the course of children’s development. The next major section then considers how various socialization agents influence children’s motivation.

Within-Person Change in Motivation

Early Development of Self-Evaluation During the Preschool Years

Some researchers have looked at very young children's reactions to success and failure, reactions which likely provide the foundation for the development of the different motivational beliefs, values, and goals discussed in this chapter. Heckhausen (1987) found that children between 2 1/2 and 3 1/2 years start to show self-evaluative, non-verbal expressions following a successful or unsuccessful action. The earliest indicators of achievement motivation were facial expressions of joy after success and sadness after failure. The experience of success (around 30 months) preceded the experience of failure (around 36 months). Several months later children showed postural expressions of pride and shame following success and failure. When competing with others, three and four year old children initially showed joy after winning and sadness after losing. It was only when they looked at their competitor that they expressed pride and shame.

Stipek, Rechchia, and McClintic (1992) identified three stages of development in young children's self-evaluations: The children younger than 22 months were neither concerned with others' evaluation of their performance nor self-reflective in their evaluations. However, they did show positive emotional reactions to accomplishing a task and negative emotions when they did not. Thus, unlike Heckhausen, Stipek et al. found that reactions to success and failure occurred at the same time in development. Two -year-olds reacted more to others' evaluations by seeking approval when they did well and turning away when they did poorly. After age 3, the children were able to evaluate their own performance, without needing to see how adults reacted to that performance, and engaged in more autonomous self-evaluation. Children three and older also reacted more strongly to winning and losing than did younger children.

Dweck and her colleagues (e.g., Burhans & Dweck, 1995; Heyman, Dweck, & Cain, 1992; Smiley & Dweck, 1994; see Dweck, 2002, for review) also have done interesting work on young children’s reactions to failure; we review this work more completely later when we discuss the development of learned helplessness. Generally, their findings show that some preschool children already react quite negatively to failure, reactions that may lead to later learned helplessness in response to failure.

Taken together, these studies show that reactions to success and failure begin early in the preschool years, likely laying the groundwork for the development of motivation in the middle childhood years and beyond. The results concerning children's reactions to failure are particularly important because they suggest that children are more sensitive to failure in the preschool years than was once believed (see Dweck, 2002).

20

Motivation

The Development of Competence-Related Beliefs

Much of the work on the development of children's achievement-related beliefs has looked at the development of children's ability and expectancy-related beliefs (e.g., see Dweck & Elliott, 1983; Stipek & Mac Iver, 1989 for reviews of the early work on this topic). We discuss three kinds of changes in these beliefs: change in their factorial structure, in mean levels, and change in children's understanding of them.

The factorial structure of children's competence-related beliefs. Eccles et al. (1998) reviewed factor analytic research showing that children as young as five or six appear to have distinctive competence perceptions among different academic and non-academic domains of competence. Since that review researchers have looked at even younger children and found that these children also have differentiated competence-related beliefs (Mantzicoupolus, French, & Maller, 2004; Marsh, Ellis, & Craven, 2002). This does not mean, however, that there is no change or refinement in children's beliefs from kindergarten through high school. The pattern of correlations of self-concept factors differs in meaningful ways for younger and older children (Marsh & Ayotte, 2003). Younger children use fewer of the scale points when responding to the items on the questionnaires, and their responses correlate less well with both their teachers' and their parents' estimates of their competencies (Eccles, Wigfield, et al., 1993; Wigfield et al, 1997).

Eccles & Wigfield (1995) and Eccles et al. (1993) also have used factor analytic strategies to access whether children's competence beliefs and expectancies for success are distinct constructs. Analyses of both children’s and adolescents’ responses indicate the ratings of one's current competence, expectancies for success, and perceived performance load on the same fact or, suggesting that these components comprise a single concept for children age 6-18.

Change in the mean level of children's competence-related beliefs. Another well-established finding in the literature is that children’s competence beliefs for different tasks decline across the elementary school years and through the high school years (see Dweck & Elliott, 1983; Eccles et al., 1998; Stipek & Mac Iver, 1989 for review). Many young children are quite optimistic about their competencies in different areas, and this optimism changes to greater realism and (sometimes) pessimism for many children. To illustrate, in Nicholls (1979) most first graders ranked themselves near the top of the class in reading ability, and there was no correlation between their ability ratings and their performance level. By contrast the 12 year olds' ratings were more dispersed and correlated highly with school grades (.70 or higher). Recently, researchers in the U. S. have examined change over the entire elementary and secondary school years in children’s competence beliefs for math, language arts, and sport (Jacobs, Lanza, Osgood, Eccles, & Wigfield, et al., 2002; Fredericks & Eccles, 2002;), and Watt (2004) looked at change across middle and senior high school in Australia. Jacobs et al. examined change in children’s competence for math, language arts, and sports across grades 1 through 12. Children’s perceptions in each area were strongly positive early on. However, the overall pattern of change was a decline in each domain. There were some differences across domain with respect to when the strongest changes occurred, particularly in language arts and math. In language arts the strongest declines occurred during elementary school and then little change was observed after that. In sports the change accelerated during the high school years. The decline in math competence beliefs was steady over time. Frederick and Eccles and Watt also found declines over time in competence beliefs and values, although the specific trends were somewhat different across these studies.

One caveat about this general “optimism early and realism later” pattern should be noted. As just discussed, researchers observing children’s reactions to failure find that some preschool children already reacted negatively to failure (see Dweck, 2002; Stipek et al. 1992). Dweck notes that during the preschool years children likely do not have a clearly defined notion of what ability is. So these earlier negative reactions to failure may not mean that children doubt their ability, as their views of ability still are taking shape. But the connection between these reactions and level of ability beliefs likely begins to develop early in the school years, and children reacting negatively to failure early on may be more likely to be pessimistic about their abilities later.

In summary, children's competence beliefs and expectancies for success become more negative as they get older. The negative changes in children's competence-related beliefs have been explained in two ways: (1) Because children become much better at understanding, interpreting, and integrating the evaluative feedback they receive, and engage in more social comparison with their peers, children become more accurate or realistic in their self-assessments, leading some to become relatively more negative (see Dweck & Elliott, 1983; Nicholls,

21

Motivation

1984; Ruble, 1983; Stipek & Mac Iver, 1989); (2) Because school environment changes in ways that makes evaluation more salient and competition between students more likely, some children's self-assessments will decline as they get older (e.g., see Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Wigfield, Byrnes, & Eccles, in press; Wigfield, Eccles, & Pintrich, 1996). We return to this issue of how school environments influence children’s motivation later.

There are two important limitations to this work on mean-level change in the development of competence beliefs. First, most of it is normative, in the sense that researchers report overall mean differences in their studies. We thus know less about patterns of changes within different groups of children and adolescents, although there is some information about this (e.g., Harter et al., 1992; Wigfield et al., 1991). Wigfield et al. (1991) found that this pattern of change varied somewhat for children high or low in math ability. Second, the measures used in this work either are at the school level or (more frequently) at the domain-specific level. It is possible that children’s beliefs about their competence for more particular activities may show different patterns of change, and we know little about this. We also know little about how children arrive at judgments of their competence in something as broad as “reading” or “science”; do they simply average their performance in a variety of different relevant tasks, or use a more elaborate strategy (see Winne, 2002, for discussion of how individuals calibrate their beliefs)?

Finally, one other set of findings relevant to the issue of mean-level change should be mentioned. Longitudinal studies looking at relations of children’s competence beliefs over time show that these beliefs become increasingly stable as children get older (e.g., Eccles et al., 1989; Wigfield et al., 1997). Even by the middle of the elementary school years children’s competence beliefs correlate quite highly across a one-year period, with the correlations reaching as high as .74. Thus by early adolescence there is much stability in these beliefs, even though the overall pattern of change is the decline just discussed. The implication of these findings is that individuals tend to maintain their relative position in their group, even as the group’s mean declines.

Changes in children's understanding of competence-related beliefs. The research on both the structure of and mean level differences in children's beliefs does not tell us about children's understanding of these constructs, because the questionnaire methodology used in these studies requires children to respond to researcher-defined constructs rather than generate their own definitions of a given construct. But it is important to understand how children conceptualize the different constructs in order to interpret comparisons of different-aged children's beliefs meaningfully.

Dweck (2002) described important developmental changes in children’s understandings of ability. During the preschool years and into kindergarten children do not have a clear sense of ability as a characteristic that determines outcomes, but as discussed earlier they do react to success and failure experiences. Part of this reaction is to think they are good when they do well and bad when they do poorly; indeed, Dweck argues that conceptions of goodness and badness are primary at this time. During the early school years concepts of ability begin to emerge, and children see ability as distinct from other qualities and also differentiate their ability across domains. They often think of ability as changeable, and use normative rather than comparative standards to judge ability, but some children begin to see ability as a stable characteristic. As children move through these ages social comparison takes on increasing importance, however. Children’s beliefs about ability also become more accurate, in the sense of correlating more strongly with performance measures. Between ages 10 and 12 children differentiate more clearly ability, effort, and performance, and also see how they interrelate. These children more often use comparative standards in judging ability. More children come to view ability as capacity (or take an entity view of intelligence, to use Dweck’s term), which means they are less likely to believe that with increased effort their ability will improve.

Researchers have investigated children's understanding of ability, effort, task difficulty and intelligence (see Eccles et al., 1998, for review). Nicholls and his colleagues found a developmental progression between ages 5 and 12 with respect to children’s beliefs about ability, effort, and performance (Nicholls, 1978; Nicholls & Miller, 1984). They found four relatively distinct levels of reasoning: At level one (ages 5 to 6), effort, ability, and performance are not clearly differentiated in terms of cause and effect. At level two (ages 7 to 9), effort is seen as the primary cause of performance outcomes. At level three (ages 9 to 12), children begin to differentiate ability and effort as causes of outcomes, but they do not always apply this distinction. Finally, at level four, adolescents clearly differentiate ability and effort, and understand the notion of ability as capacity. They also believe that ability can limit the effects of additional effort on performance, that ability and effort are often related to

22

Motivation

each other in a compensatory manner, and, consequently, that success requiring a great deal of effort likely reflects limited ability.

As we will discuss in more detail later in the section on learned helplessness, these different views of ability and intelligence have important implications for children’s reactions to success and failure, particularly their reactions to failure. As Dweck and her colleagues have discussed, children with an entity view of ability are more likely to give up following failure, because they are less likely to believe that additional effort will improve their performance, because their ability is fixed. By contrast, children with an incremental view are more likely to continue to strive after failure, because they think their ability can change.

Pomerantz and Saxon (2001; see also Pomerantz & Ruble, 1997) added another distinction to this discussion. They distinguished between (in their terms) “conceptions of ability as stable to external forces”, and “conceptions of ability as stable to internal forces.” Stability of ability with respect to external forces “is the view that ability is unlikely to be influenced by forces external to the individual possessing the ability (e.g., situational changes)” (Pomerantz & Saxon, 2001, p. 153). Pomerantz and Saxon argued that as children get older they increasingly hold this view about ability and a number of other characteristics, with the implication that children see individuals’ behaviors as relatively consistent across types of activities and over time. Pomerantz and Saxon see conceptions of ability as stable to internal forces as analogous to Dweck’s (2002) entity theory of ability. One reason they see these is similar is that Dweck and her colleagues operationalize the entity view of ability as the belief that ability is not under one’s own control (e.g., Cain & Dweck, 1995). For instance, one item from Cain and Dweck’s measure of views of intelligence is “ You’re a certain amount smart, and you can’t really do much to change it” (p. 153). That is, the individual cannot do much to change his or her ability. Pomerantz and Saxon proposed that the latter but not the former conception about the nature of ability could have negative consequences for motivation and achievement.

They studied these two conceptions of ability in a sample of fourth through sixth grade children. Concepts of ability as stable to external forces were measured by the researchers describing to participants another child as either smart or not very smart at schoolwork, and then having children rate the other child’s ability at four time points and in four situations. Similar procedures were used to measure social ability. Differences between children’s ratings of the other’s ability and the initial description were used to determine how much children believed that the other children’s ability was stable with respect to external forces. Ability as stable with respect to internal forces was measured using Cain and Dweck’s (1995) scale. Results showed that the two kinds of conceptions were inversely (but weakly) related. Children’s beliefs that ability was stable with respect to external forces increased over time, and their conceptions of ability as stable with respect to internal forces decreased over time. Believing that ability is stable with respect to external forces correlated positively with the importance children attached to being competent, a preference for challenge, positive perceptions of competence, and academic performance. The opposite pattern of relations occurred for perceptions that ability is stable with respect to internal forces. It should be noted that both sets of correlations were relatively weak.

Pomerantz and Saxon (2001) concluded that seeing ability as stable, at least with respect to external forces, actually is a positive belief for children to have, because of the pattern of its relations with other motivational beliefs and performance. By contrast, believing that ability is stable with respect to internal forces has negative implications for motivation and performance. Thus it is not stability per se but the type of stability that is crucial. Further, they noted that viewing ability as stable with respect to external forces was a more stable belief over time than was viewing ability as stable with respect to internal forces. These intriguing findings provide a more subtle representation of the impact of having “stable” beliefs on motivational and performance outcomes. However, because many of the observed relations were rather weak (albeit significant) this potentially important distinction requires further research. Further, both Dweck’s work and Nicholls’ work suggests that children increasingly view ability as stable as they get older, whereas Pomerantz and Saxon found just the opposite with respect to beliefs about stability of ability with respect to internal causes. This apparent contradiction needs to be resolved.

In sum, work on children’s understanding of ability converges with the factor analytic work in the sense of showing that young children differentiate ability into different areas. However, this work shows that younger and older children have different ideas about the nature of ability and its relations to effort, other achievement beliefs, and performance, which means we must take some care in how we interpret the factor analytic findings. Using the same scales to measure perceived ability at different ages may be problematic given the apparent differences in how younger and older children understand ability.

23

Motivation

Development of Efficacy Beliefs

There has not been extensive research on the development of efficacy beliefs per se, although the work on ability beliefs and expectancies is directly relevant. Instead, research on children's self-efficacy has focused primarily on interventions to enhance the self-efficacy and school performance of low achieving children (e.g., see Schunk, 1994; Schunk & Pajares, 2002). Extant work on the development of efficacy shows that children’s efficacy beliefs increase across age. Shell, Colvin, and Bruning (1995) found that 4th graders had lower self-efficacy beliefs for reading and writing than did 7th and 10th graders, and the 7th graders efficacy beliefs were lower than 10th graders beliefs (see Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990, for similar findings). The inconsistency of these findings with those on children's competence beliefs just discussed likely reflects the self-efficacy measure used by Shell et al. Their instrument measured children's estimates of their efficacy on specific reading and writing skills rather than more general beliefs about competence reading and writing,; the more specific beliefs should be higher among older children. Also, efficacy beliefs usually are not measured comparatively, whereas many measures of competence beliefs include comparisons of one’s ability with that of others. The latter kind of measure may be more likely to show declines over age.

Bandura (1997) and Schunk and Pajares (2002) discussed factors influencing the development of self-efficacy. They proposed that children who have mastery experiences in which they exert some control over their environments develop the earliest sense of personal agency. Through these experiences, infants learn that they can influence and control their environments. Parents and other adults can facilitate the growth of this sense of agency by the kinds of experiences they provide children. If parents do not provide infants with these experiences, they are not likely to develop a strong a sense of personal agency. Second, because self-efficacy requires the understanding that the self produced an action and an outcome, Bandura argued that a more mature sense of self-efficacy should not emerge until children have at least a rudimentary self-concept and can recognize that they are distinct individuals, which happens sometime during the second year of life (see Harter, 1998; this volume). Through the preschool period, children are exposed to extensive performance information that should be crucial to their emerging sense of self-efficacy. However, just how useful such information likely depends on the child's ability to integrate it across time, contexts, and domains; Schunk and Pajares discuss the challenges children face in doing so. More work is needed to understand how children become able to integrate diverse sources of information about their performances (e.g., information about their own performance, social comparison information, etc.) to develop a stable of self-efficacy. Schunk and Pajares also discuss the crucial role peers can play in the development of self-efficacy, or its demise.

Finally, Schunk and Pajares (2002) and Bandura (1997) stressed the importance of school environments for developing and supporting a high sense of efficacy, or possibly undermining it if support is not provided. We return later to a discussion of how this can occur.

Development of Control Beliefs

Work done on perceived control done in the 1980s and 1990s showed that there are developmental patterns in these beliefs. Weisz (1984) found that younger children actually believe they have greater control over chance events than do older children. Similarly, Connell (1985) found a decrease in the endorsement of all three of his locus of control constructs (internal control, powerful others control, and unknown control) from grades 3 through 9. Like Weisz's findings, the unknown belief results suggest that older children have a clearer understanding of what controls achievement outcomes. However, the older children also rated the other two sources of control as less important, making interpretation of these findings difficult.

Skinner examined age differences in both the structure and the mean levels of means-ends beliefs (see Skinner, 1995), and found the factor structure becomes increasingly complex as children get older. She also found the largest mean-level differences on some of the means-ends beliefs. At all ages between 7 and 12, children believe effort is the most effective means. In contrast, older children are much less likely to believe that luck is an effective means than younger children. As in Connell (1985), belief in the relevance of unknown control and powerful others also decreased across age levels.

In a landmark three-year longitudinal study, Skinner, Zimmer-Gembeck, and Connell (1998) assessed the development of perceived control in children and early adolescents and how it predicted student engagement in school. Their cohort-sequential design encompassed third through seventh grade children. Skinner et al.

24

Motivation

measured overall control beliefs, beliefs about the strategies needed to do well in school (including the strategies of effort, ability, powerful others, luck, and unknown), and beliefs about capacity to access one’s effort, ability, powerful others, and luck. They also measured children’s engagement in school, and their perceptions of the structure and involvement provided by teachers, and examined predictive relations among these variables.

Skinner et al. (1998) found that perceived control showed a curvilinear pattern of change, being stable at first, increasing slightly through 4th grade, and then declining after 5th grade. Student engagement declined during middle school, as did students’ perceptions that teachers provided structure and were involved with them. Changes in perceived control related to changes in engagement, and change in the teacher context variables predicted change in perceived control. Specifically, children initially either high or low in perceived control decreased in their control perceptions if they perceived that teachers were providing less structure and were less involved with them. A number of interesting age differences in the predictors of engagement and control emerged. Younger children’s beliefs about their capacity to exert effort were a stronger predictor, whereas for older children it was their beliefs about their ability. Grades predicted perceived control more strongly for older than younger children. Skinner et al. also suggested that the context provided by teachers may provide a stronger role in the development of perceived control for younger than for older children. Skinner et al. also examined how the constructs they measured varied across different subgroups in their sample, and thus went beyond the normative approach often taken in this area.

This fascinating study provides a rich depiction of the development of perceived control, and how it relates to students’ engagement in the classroom. While rich in many respects, the measures of both academic performance and perceived control were done at the general level (see Eccles, 1998, for discussion of this and other issues with respect to this study). Based on work we reviewed earlier, these beliefs (and certainly performance) likely varies across different areas. The measure of teacher context also focused on just a few features of the classroom context. Nevertheless, the study provides a model for how to study the development of motivational processes.

In overall summary of this section on competence-related beliefs, there are numerous changes in children's competence and control beliefs. These changes include structural change, mean level change, and change in children's understanding of the constructs. We need more complex longitudinal studies such as those of Jacobs et al. (2002) and Skinner et al. (1998) to examine these changes over time, for different groups, and in relation to other contextual and psychological factors.

Development of Subjective Task Values

Eccles, Wigfield, and their colleagues examined age-related changes in both the structure and mean levels of children’s valuing of different activities. In Eccles et al. (1993) and Eccles & Wigfield (1995), children's competence-expectancy beliefs and subjective values within the domains of math, reading, and sports formed distinct factors at all grade levels from first through twelfth. Thus, even during the very early elementary grades children appear to have distinct beliefs about what they are good at and what they value. The distinction between various sub-components of subjective task value appear to differentiate more gradually (Eccles, et al., 1993; Eccles & Wigfield, 1995). Children in early elementary school differentiate task value into two components: interest and utility/importance. In contrast, children in grades five through 12 differentiate task value into the three major subcomponents (attainment value/personal importance, interest, and utility value) outlined by Eccles et al. (1983). These results suggest that the interest component differentiates out first, followed later by the distinction between utility and attainment value.

As with competence-related beliefs, studies generally show age-related decline in children’s valuing of certain academic tasks (e.g. see Eccles et al., 1998; Wigfield & Eccles, 2002b, for review). Jacobs et al. (2002), in the study described earlier in the section on the development of competence beliefs, found that children’s valuing of the domains of math, language arts, and sports declined. As was the case for competence beliefs, children’s valuing of language arts declined most during elementary school and then leveled off. By contrast, children’s valuing of math declined the most during high school (see also Frederick & Eccles, 2002).

Researchers have not addressed changes in children's understandings of the components of task value identified by Eccles et al. (1983), although there likely are age-related differences in these understandings. An eight year old is likely to have a different sense of what it means for a task to be "useful" than an 11 year old does.

25

Motivation

Further, it also is likely that there are differences across age in which of the components of achievement values are most dominant. Wigfield and Eccles (1992) suggested that interest may be especially salient during the early elementary school grades with young children's activity choices being most directly related to their interests. Young children likely try many different activities for a short time each before developing a more stable opinion regarding which activities they enjoy the most. As children get older the perceived utility and personal importance of different tasks likely become more salient, particularly as they develop more stable self-schema and long-range goals and plans. These developmental predictions need to be tested.

A related developmental question is how children's developing competence beliefs relate to their developing subjective task values. According to both the Eccles et al. (1983) model and Bandura’s (1997) self-efficacy theory, ability self-concepts should influence the development of task values. In support of this prediction, Mac Iver, Stipek, and Daniels (1991) found that changes in junior high school students' competence beliefs over a semester predicted change in children's interest much more strongly than vice versa. Does the same causal ordering occur in younger children? Bandura (1997) argued that interests emerge out of one's sense of self-efficacy and that children should be more interested in challenging than in easy tasks. Taking a developmental perspective, Wigfield (1994) proposed that initially young children's competence and task value beliefs are likely to be relatively independent of each other. This independence would mean that children might pursue some activities in which they are interested regardless of how good or bad they think they are at the activity. Over time, particularly in the achievement domains, children may begin to attach more value to activities on which they do well for several reasons: First, through processes associated with classical conditioning, the positive affect one experiences when one does well should become attached to the activities yielding success (see Eccles, 1984). Second, lowering the value one attaches to activities that one is having difficulty with is likely to be an effective way to maintain a positive global source of efficacy and self-esteem (Eccles, 1984; Harter, 1990). Thus, at some point the two kinds of beliefs should become more positively related to one another. In partial support of this view, Wigfield et al. (1997) found that relations between children's competence beliefs and subjective values in different domains indeed are stronger among older than younger elementary school-aged children. Recently, Jacobs et al. (2002) found that changes in competence beliefs predicted changes in children’s valuing of the activities, accounting for as much as 40% of the variance in change in children’s valuing of the activities. This suggests that the causal direction in this relation goes from competence beliefs to values, but more longitudinal work is needed to assess this possibility.

Development of Interest and Intrinsic Motivation

Eccles et al. (1998) summarized work on the early development of children’s interests, which shows that children have general or universal interests at first, which become more specific relatively quickly (see also Todt, 1990). Todt (1990) argued that this early differentiation eventually leads to individual differences in interests in the social versus the natural sciences. The next phase of interest development - between 3 and 8 years of age - is characterized by the formation of gender-specific interests. According to Kohlberg (1966), the acquisition of gender identity leads to gender-specific behaviors, attitudes, and interests. Children strive to behave consistently with their gender identity, and, thus, evaluate activities or objects consistent with their gender identity more positively than other activities or objects. As a consequence, boys and girls develop gender role stereotyped interests (see Eccles, 1987; Ruble & Martin, 1998).

At the next stage (ages 9 - 13) - the emerging self-concept is assumed to be linked more directly to social group affiliation and cognitive ability, leading to occupational interests consistent with one's social class and ability self-concepts (see Cook et al., 1996). The final stage (occurring after age 13 or 14) is characterized by an orientation to the internal, unique self leading to more differentiated and individualized vocational interests, based on abstract concepts of self (e.g., of personality). Thus, the development of vocational interests is a process of continuous elimination of interests that do not fit the self-concepts of one's gender, social group affiliation, ability, and then personal identity (Todt, 1990). This process is assumed to depend mainly on the general cognitive development of the child or adolescent.

It is also likely that changing needs or motives across the life span can influence the development of interests. A good example is the increasing interest in biology and psychology during

26

Motivation

puberty. The need to know oneself and to cope with rapid bodily and psychological changes seems to foster interest in biological and psychological domains of knowledge at this age (Todt, 1990).

Consistent with studies of American children (e.g., Eccles et al., 1993; Gottfried et al., 2001; Harter, 1981; Wigfield et al., 1991), several European researchers have found that that interest and intrinsic motivation in different subject areas school decline across the school years. This is especially true for the natural sciences and mathematics (e.g., Hedelin & Sjoberg, 1989) and particularly during the early adolescent years. Pekrun (1993) found that intrinsic motivation stabilized after eighth grade, and Gottfried et al. (2001) reported surprisingly high stability coefficients for intrinsic motivation measured across a one year period for children ages 13 and above.

Baumert (1995) argued that the decline in school-related interests during adolescence reflects a more general developmental process in which the adolescents discover new fields of experience that lead to new interests and reduce the dominant influence of school (cf., Eder, 1992). In contrast, other researchers have suggested that changes in a number of instructional variables like clarity of presentation, monitoring of what happens in the classroom, supportive behavior, cognitively stimulating experiences, self-concept of the teacher [educator vs. scientist], and achievement pressure may contribute to declining interest in school mathematics and science (e.g., Eccles & Midgley, 1989).

Development of Children's Goal Orientations

There still is not a large body of work on the development of children’s goals and goal orientations (see E. Anderman et al, 2002 for review of extant work). Instead, most of the work has focused on relations of goals to ability beliefs, and how different instructional contexts influence achievement goals. For instance, Dweck and her colleagues looked at relations of children’s beliefs about ability and their goal orientations, and found that performance goal oriented children only show mastery behavior when their perceived ability is high. By contrast, mastery oriented children engage in mastery-oriented behavior irrespective of their perceived ability (Burhans & Dweck, 1995; Smiley & Dweck, 1994). Butler and her colleagues have done an elegant series of studies in which they have shown how different learning conditions (competitive or non-competitive; performance or mastery focused) influence children’s subsequent motivation, and found quite interesting differences in motivation depending upon these conditions (see Eccles et al. 1998, for review).

Maehr, Midgley, and their colleagues conducted a number of studies looking at how classroom instructional practices relate to children’s goal orientations and how these relations may change over time. L. Anderman and E. Anderman (1999) reported that adolescents endorse performance goals more than mastery goals. A major reason for this likely is that schools increasingly emphasize performance goals as children get older. One clear example of this is how evaluations of different kinds proliferate, and have stronger consequences for adolescents’ futures. Midgley and their colleagues work (Midgley, 2002) has shown two major things with respect to this point: 1) elementary school teachers focus on mastery oriented goals to a greater extent than do middle school teachers, and 2) middle school students perceive school as more performance-oriented than do elementary school students. Thus any observed changes in children’s goal orientations seem very bound up in changes in the school goal culture. We return to this issue in a later section.

Goal orientations often are studied at a relatively general level, but some researchers have looked at goal orientations towards particular school activities. Meece and Miller (2001) studied the development during elementary of students’ goal orientations in reading and writing, looking at performance goals, mastery goals, and work avoidant goals. The found that children’s goal orientation were reasonably stable over a one-year period; the lagged correlations were .44 for task mastery goals, .58 for performance goals, and .45 for work-avoidance goals. With respect to change over time, following prediction children’s mastery goals decreased over time. Contrary to prediction, performance goals did as well. The pattern of change in work avoidant goals was less consistent.

There is much less work on the development of the content of children’s goals. Thus, we know very little about how the contents of children’s goals vary across age and context.

Development of Self-Regulation and Volition

Eccles et al. (1998) reviewed work establishing two general developmental points concerning self-regulation. First, children's ability to self-regulate increases dramatically across the toddler period (Bullock &

27

Motivation

Lutkenhaus, 1988) due to increases in ability to focus on both the outcomes of their behaviors and the behaviors themselves (see Mischel & Mischel, 1983), increases in understanding of the self as a causal agent (Bandura, 1997, Jennings, 1991, Skinner, 1995), and increases in both the ability and desire to evaluate the success or failure of one’s achievement efforts (Heckhausen, 1987; Stipek et al., 1992). Second, parents play a critical role in the extent to which children regulate their own behavior. For instance, both the ways parents define and organize tasks for the children, and the control strategies they use, have a big impact on very young children's ability to regulate their behavior (e.g., use of indirect commands, verbal controls, and reasoning facilitates the early development of self-regulation, see Kopp, 1991).

From the self-determination theory perspective, development involves the process of internalization, where children take increasing control over their own behavior and thus become more self-determined (see Deci & Ryan, 2002). Grolnick and her colleagues (2002) discussed the important role of autonomy support in the development of self-determination and intrinsic motivation. They reviewed research showing that when parents and teachers support children’s autonomy children have more positive competence beliefs, greater intrinsic motivation, and higher self-esteem. Along with autonomy support Grolnick et al. stressed the roles of affective support, involvement in children’s lives, and the provision of adequate structure in children’s environments as fostering the development of self-determination.

Turning to self-regulated learning, Zimmerman (2000) proposed a four-step developmental sequence of self-regulation. Children first learn effective strategies by observing successful models and focusing on process goals. Second, children imitate the strategies, following what the model did relatively closely. Third, they learn to use the strategies apart from the model; Zimmerman called this self-controlled learning. Although children do the strategies on their own, they still are dependent on the model. Finally, in the self-regulated phase children begin to both use the strategies in different situations and tailor them to their own purposes. They also focus more on outcome goals. Research is beginning to show that individuals’ ability to learn different behaviors relates to the kind of regulatory training they experience. Kitsantas, Zimmerman, and Cleary (2000) found that novice learners learned best when learning from models rather than simply receiving performance feedback on their own performance. Zimmerman and Kitsantas (1999) found that as students moved through the levels of regulatory skill they learned more efficiently when focused on outcome goals rather than process goals, because the former matched more clearly their level of self-regulation.

Pintrich and Zusho (2002) also discussed the development of self-regulation, discussing both phases of self-regulation like those we discussed earlier and different areas that need to be regulated (cognition, motivation, behavior, and context). Like Eccles et al. (1998) they noted that children become more efficient at regulating their cognition and behavior, and possibly their motivation, as they get older. They also discussed, however, that older children may know how to regulate these areas but oftentimes do not, reflecting the pervasive competence/performance distinction that occurs in many areas of psychology. Pintrich and Zusho reviewed specific aspects of cognition and motivation that relate to the ability to self-regulate learning and behavior. With respect to motivation, one’s level of efficacy, degree of interest in the activity, and goals for it all relate to children’s self-regulation. When children are efficacious, interested in the activity they are doing, and hold learning goals, they are more likely to regulate their behavior to accomplish a certain activity (see also Wolters, 2003). Further, there are potentially interesting developmental issues with respect to each of these motivational constructs. For instance, younger children’s competence and efficacy beliefs relate less closely to their actual behavior, and (particularly with respect to competence beliefs) often are overly optimistic, which may mean that younger children do not see the need to carefully regulate their actions to produce an outcome. As competence beliefs and performance become more closely calibrated this likely changes. With respect to goal orientations, if mastery goals become less prevalent and performance goals more prevalent then self-regulation may decline (but see Pintrich, 2000b, on multiple pathways to different outcomes).

With respect to the use of different self-regulatory strategies, Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1990) found a complex pattern of differences across age in use of these strategies by older children and adolescents. Researchers have not yet systematically tested how strategies, goals, and self-efficacy interact to influence the regulation of learning in different-aged children. Additionally, it would be useful to compare Zimmerman’s model with Deci and Ryan's discussion of the development of internalized regulation.

There is some developmental work on volitional strategies. For example, Kuhl and Kraska (1989), in German and Mexican elementary school-aged children, found increases in children's ability to use all of the strategies except for emotion control. But more developmental work is needed here as well.

28

Motivation

The Development and Remediation of Motivational Problems

Many children begin to experience motivational problems during the school years We focus on three motivational problems that have received the most attention in the literature: test anxiety, learned helplessness, and apathy. The first two of these problems are tied to beliefs about not being able to do different activities, whereas the third emerges when children devalue achievement related activities.

Anxiety

Anxiety, and its close cousin test anxiety, is estimated to interfere with the learning and performance, particularly in evaluative situations, of as many as 10 million children and adolescents in the USA (Hill & Wigfield, 1984; Tobias, 1985; Wigfield & Eccles, 1989), and this problem likely will get worse as evaluation and accountability become more emphasized in schools (Deci & Ryan, 2002b; Zeidner, 1998). Anxiety often is conceptualized as having two components, worry and emotionality, with worry referring to cognitive ruminations and emotionality referring to physiological reactions (see Morris, Davis, & Hutchings, 1981). Researchers have focused on the cognitive/worry aspect of anxiety because worry is more strongly and negatively related to performance than emotionality (e.g., Morris et al., 1981; Sarason, 1980).

Researchers (e.g., Dusek, 1980; Hill & Wigfield, 1984; Wigfield & Eccles, 1989; Zeidner, 1998) postulate that high anxiety emerges when parents have overly high expectations and put too much pressure on their children, but few studies have tested this proposition. Anxiety continues to develop across the school years as children face more frequent evaluation, social comparison, and (for some) experiences of failure; to the extent that schools emphasize these characteristics, anxiety becomes a problem for more children (Hill & Wigfield, 1984). With a few important exceptions (e.g., Silverman, Greca, & Wasserstein, 1995; Vasey & Daleiden, 1994; Zeidner, 1998), work on anxiety has diminished. One reason for this is the argument that anxiety is simply the flip side of negative judgments about one's ability and efficacy. For instance, Nicholls (1976) concluded that many items on one of the major scales used to measure anxiety, the Test Anxiety Scale for Children, refer to negative ability beliefs. When he separated the ability and anxiety items, the ability items related more strongly to indicators of achievement than the anxiety items (c.f., Bandura, 1997; Meece et al., 1990). Second is increasing interest in other kinds of emotions and their relations to motivation and achievement (see Pekrun, 2000).

Anxiety Intervention Programs

Many programs have been developed to reduce anxiety (Denny, 1980; Wigfield & Eccles, 1989; Zeidner, 1998). Earlier intervention programs, emphasizing the emotionality aspect of anxiety, focused on relaxation and desensitization techniques. Although these programs did reducing anxiety, they did not always lead to improved performance, and the studies had serious methodological flaws. Anxiety intervention programs linked to the worry aspect of anxiety focus on changing the negative, self-deprecating thoughts of anxious individuals and replacing them with more positive, task-focused thoughts (e.g., see Denny, 1980; Meichenbaum & Butler, 1980). These programs have been more successful both in lowering anxiety and improving performance.

Learned Helplessness

"Learned helplessness ... exists when an individual perceives the termination of failure to be independent of his responses" (Dweck & Goetz, 1978, p. 157). Eccles et al. (1998) reviewed the early work (primarily by Dweck and her colleagues) on how helpless and mastery oriented children differ in their responses to failure (see also Dweck & Elliott, 1983; Dweck & Leggett, 1988). When confronted by difficulty (or failure), mastery oriented children persist, stay focused on the task, and sometimes even use more sophisticated strategies. In contrast, helpless children's performance deteriorates, they ruminate about their difficulties, often begin to attribute their failures to lack of ability. Further, helpless children adopt the "entity" view that their intelligence is fixed, whereas mastery oriented children adopt the incremental view of intelligence.

As noted earlier, the “optimism to realism” pattern of change in children’s ability-related belief led some researchers to conclude that helplessness is less likely to occur in younger children. Dweck and her colleagues’ more recent work (e.g., Burhans & Dweck, 1995) shows that in fact some young (5 and 6 year old) children respond quite negatively to failure feedback, showing the helpless pattern and judging themselves to be bad

29

Motivation

people (c.f., Stipek et al., 1992). Indeed, they proposed that young children's helplessness is based more on their judgments that their worth as persons is contingent on their performance than on having a mature entity view of intelligence. This work by suggests an important developmental modification to Dweck and Legget's (1988) model of learned helpless versus master oriented motivational styles that is based in beliefs about intelligence and goals.

What else influences the emergence of individual differences in learned helplessness in children? Dweck and Goetz (1978) stressed the importance of whether children receive feedback that their failures are due to lack of ability or lack of skills and effort from parents and teachers. In support, Hokoda and Fincham (1995) found that mothers of helpless third grade children (in comparison to mothers of mastery-oriented children) gave fewer positive affective comments to their children, were more likely to respond to their children's lack of confidence in their ability by telling them to quit, were less responsive to their children's bids for help, and did not focus them on mastery goals. Recently Dweck and Lennon (2001) found that students’ perceptions that their parents had entity views of intelligence (measured in terms of the kinds of feedback they would provide their children about different achievement outcomes) predicted their own views of intelligence. For instance, students perceiving their parents had an entity view were more likely themselves to have an entity view.

Alleviating Learned Helplessness

Various training techniques (including operant conditioning and providing specific attributional feedback) have been used successfully to change children's failure attributions from lack of ability to lack of effort, improving their task persistence, and performance (e.g., Andrews & Debus, 1978; Dweck, 1975; Forsterling, 1985). Two problems with these approaches have been noted. First, what if the child is already trying very hard? Then the attribution re-training may be counter productive. Second, telling children to "try harder" without providing specific strategies designed to improve performance is likely to back fire if the children increase their efforts and still do not succeed. Therefore, some researchers advocate using strategy re-training in combination with attribution retraining in order to provide lower achieving and/or learned helpless children with specific ways to remedy their achievement problems. Borkowski and his colleagues, for example, have shown that a combined program of strategy instruction and attribution re-training is more effective than strategy instruction alone in increasing reading motivation and performance in underachieving students (e.g., Borkowski, Weyhing, & Carr, 1988; Paris & Byrnes, 1989).

Student Apathy

Apathy has more to do with students’ sense of the value of participating in different activities rather than their beliefs about whether they are capable of accomplishing the activity. Children who are apathetic about learning or participating in other activities do not find much worthwhile to do in school or in other situations, and may even be so alienated from these activities that they actively resist attempts to get them involved. Brophy (2004) contended that apathy is the most serious motivational problem that teachers most contend with in their students, more serious than learned helplessness or anxiety. The apathy construct has some overlap with the construct of amotivation in SDT (Vallerand et al., 1993).

There has not been a lot of research on the development of apathy, but different researchers have discussed possible reasons for it. These range from broad social and cultural explanations to more psychologically oriented ones. Ogbu’s (1992) discussion of why some minority children do well in school and others do not is an example of a broad cultural approach to this issue. Children who believe their ethnic or racial group is excluded from meaningful participation in the economic structure of this country may find little reason to engage in the school activities said to be needed to obtain good occupations. Ogbu has argued that such children often become oppositional to participation in school activities, resisting attempts of teachers to engage them in learning activities. We return to this issue later. A more psychological perspective on apathy can be drawn from Markus and Nurius’s (1986) work on possible selves. Markus and Nurius argued that possible selves provide an important motivational force for engagement in different activities such as school or sport activities. If children do not see much of a future for themselves in these or other domains they likely will not see much reason to be involved in school or other activities designed to prepare them for the future, and so may be very apathetic about becoming involved in such activities.

We noted that apathy stems from the de-valuing of different kinds of activities rather than from children’s perceptions of their competence to accomplish them, but the interplay of competence beliefs and values

30

Motivation

may play a crucial role in the development of apathy. Recall our earlier discussion of how children maintain their self-worth by valuing those activities at which they are competent, and de-valuing activities where they are doing less well. Children doing poorly at school may begin to de-value school achievement, as a way to protect their self-esteem (see Covington, 1992). This de-valuing could lead to apathy, again as a self-protective mechanism. Engaging in learning has risks, particularly for students not doing well, and one way to protect against those risks is to be apathetic about learning.

Finally, there likely are different developmental trajectories for the development of apathy. We noted two major possibilities to this point, children who perceive few opportunities for themselves or for their group and so come to de-value school, or children who begin to do poorly in school and so begin to de-value it as a way to protect their self-esteem. We use school activities to illustrate these points, but it should be noted that these patterns could occur for other kinds of activities as well. Another trajectory occurs for students doing well in school during the early school years and who come from backgrounds and cultural groups who generally have succeeded in our society, but who decide (for a variety of reasons) to no longer engage in school. These children may become alienated from school and therefore apathetic about participating in school activities (National Research Council, 2004). To date there is little developmental work on any of these trajectories, and that should be undertaken.

Summary

In summary, work on anxiety, learned helplessness, and apathy shows that some children suffer from motivational problems that can debilitate their performance in achievement situations, and lead them to disengage from school and other achievement activities. Although most of the work in developmental and educational psychology has focused on these problems, there likely are other important motivational problems as well. In particular, some children may set maladaptive achievement goals, and others may have difficulties regulating their achievement behaviors. More comprehensive work on these kinds of motivational problems and how they affect children's achievement is needed

The Development of Gender Differences in Motivation

Gender Differences in Motivation and AchievementDespite recent efforts to increase the participation of women in advanced educational training and high

status professional fields, women are still under-represented in many fields, particularly those associated with technology, physics and applied mathematics and at the highest levels of almost all fields (see Wigfield, Battle, Keller, & Eccles, 2002). Efforts to understand these persistent sex differences in achievement patterns have produced a proliferation of theories and research (see McGillicuddy- De Lisi & De Lisi, 2002, for review). Eccles and her colleagues originally proposed their expectancy - value model of achievement choices (see Figure 1) as an effort to organize this disparate research into a comprehensive theoretical framework (see Eccles [Parsons] et al., 1983; Wigfield & Eccles, 2002b). This model predicts that people will be most likely to enroll in courses and choose careers that they think they will do well in and that have high task value for them. Expectations for success depend on the confidence the individual has in his/her intellectual abilities and on the individual's estimations of the difficulty of the course or activity. These beliefs have been shaped by the individual's experiences with the subject matter, by the individual's subjective interpretation of those experiences (e.g., does the person think that her/his successes are a consequence of high ability or lots of hard work?) and by cultural stereotypes regarding both the difficulty of the course and the distribution of relevant talents across various subgroups. The value of a particular course is also influenced by several factors including the following: Does the person like doing the subject material? How well does the course fit with the individual’s self-concepts, goals, and values? Is the course seen as instrumental in meeting one of the individual's long or short range goals? Have the individual's parents or counselors insisted that the course be taken or, conversely, have other people tried to discourage the individual from taking the course? Does taking the course interfere with other goals and values activities? Existing evidence, reviewed next, supports the conclusion that gender-role socialization and internalization are likely to lead to gender differences in each of these broad motivational categories, which, in turn, could contribute to the under representation of women in many high achievement-oriented occupations and activities (see Eccles, 1994).Gender Differences in Competence-Related Beliefs, Causal Attributions, and Control Beliefs

Gender differences, often favoring males, in competence beliefs are often reported, particularly in gender-role stereotyped domains and on novel tasks, and these differences are apparent as early as kindergarten or

31

Motivation

first grade, if not before. For example, gifted and high achieving females are more likely to underestimate both their ability level and their class standing (Frome & Eccles, 1995). In other studies, the gender difference depends on the gender-role stereotyping of the activity. For example, boys hold higher competence beliefs than girls for math and sports, even after all relevant skill-level differences are controlled; in contrast, girls have higher competence beliefs than boys for reading and English, music and arts, and social studies. Recent work (Jacobs et al., 2002) shows that the gender differences in competence beliefs in math narrow during adolescence, but those in English remain. Further, the extent to which children endorse the cultural stereotypes regarding which sex is likely to be most talented in each domain predicts the extent to which girls and boys distort their ability self-concepts and expectations in the gender stereotypic direction (Eccles & Harold, 1991). However, these sex differences are generally relatively small when they are found (Marsh, 1989).

Gender differences are also sometimes found for locus of control, with girls having higher internal locus of responsibility scores for both positive and negative achievement events and the older girls had higher internality for negative events than did the younger girls (Crandall et al., 1965). These two developmental patterns resulted in the older girls accepting more blame for negative events than the older boys (c.f., Dweck & Goetz, 1978). Connell (1985) found that boys attributed their outcomes more than girls to either powerful others or unknown causes in both the cognitive and social domains.

This greater propensity for girls to take personal responsibility for their failures, coupled with their more frequent attribution of failure to lack of ability (a stable, uncontrollable cause) has been interpreted as evidence of greater learned helplessness in females (see Dweck & Licht, 1980). However, evidence for gender differences on behavioral indicators of learned helplessness is quite mixed. In most studies of underachievers, boys outnumber girls 2 to 1 (see McCall, Evahn, Kratzer, 1992). Similarly, boys are more likely than girls to be referred by their teachers for motivational problems and are more likely to drop out of school before completing high school. More consistent evidence exists that females, compared to males, select easier laboratory tasks, avoid challenging and competitive situations, lower their expectations more following failure, shift more quickly to a different college major when their grades begin to drop, and perform more poorly than they are capable of on difficult, timed tests (see Dweck & Licht, 1980; Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999).

Gender differences also emerge regularly in studies of anxiety (e.g., Hill & Sarason, 1966; Meece et al., 1990). However, Hill and Sarason suggested that boys may be more defensive than girls about admitting anxiety on questionnaires. In support of this suggestion, Lord, Eccles, and McCarthy (1994) found that test anxiety was a more significant predictor of poor adjustment to junior high school for boys even though the girls reported higher mean levels of anxiety.

Closely related to the anxiety findings, Spencer et al. (1999) documented another motivational mechanism likely to undermine females’ performance on difficult timed tests: stereotype vulnerability. They hypothesize that members of social groups (like females) stereotyped as being less competent in a particular subject area (like math) will become anxious when asked to do difficult problems because they are afraid the stereotype might be true of them. This vulnerability is also likely to make them respond more negatively to failure feedback, leading to lowering their expectations and their confidence in their ability to succeed. They gave college students a difficult math test under different conditions: (1) after being told that males typically do better on this test, or (2) after being told that males and females typically do about the same, or (3) gender differences were not mentioned. The women scored lower than the males only in the first condition.

In sum, when gender differences emerge on competence-related measures of motivation, they are both consistent with gender-role stereotypes and are likely mediators of gender differences in various types of achievement-related behaviors and choices.

Gender Differences in Achievement Values

Eccles, Wigfield and their colleagues have found gender-role stereotypic differences in both children’s and adolescents’ valuing of sports, social activities, and English that begin quite early in the course of children’s development (e.g. Eccles et al., 1989; Eccles et al., 1993; Wigfield et al., 1991). In Eccles et al. (1993), girls also valued instrumental music more than boys. Earlier work showed gender differences in math value favoring boys emerging during adolescence (Eccles, 1984), but more recent studies show that boys and girls value math equally during adolescence (Jacobs et al., 2002). Although boys and girls now appear to value math equally, girls are less

32

Motivation

interested in science (with the exception of biology) and engineering than are boys, and enroll much less frequently in these majors in college (see Wigfield, Battle et al., 2002, for review). Eccles et al. (1998) reviewed the work on the psychological processes that underlie some of these sex differences in children’s achievement values.

Disidentification. Earlier we discussed the relationship between values and competence-related beliefs. Drawing on the writings of William James (1892/1963), we suggested that children will lower the value they attach to particular activities or subject areas if they lack confidence in these areas in order to maintain their self-esteem (see also Harter, 1990). Spencer et al. (1999) suggested a similar phenomenon related to stereotype vulnerability. They hypothesized that women will disidentify with those subject areas in which females are stereotyped as less competent than males. By disidentifying with these areas, the women will not only lower the value they attach to these subject areas, they will also be less likely to experience pride and positive affect when they are doing well in these subjects. Consequently, these subjects should become irrelevant to their self-esteem. These hypotheses need further testing.

The Development of Group Differences in Motivation: The Roles of Culture,

Ethnicity, and Immigration

As is the case in many areas of psychology (see Graham, 1992), less is known about the motivation of children from racial and ethnic groups other than European-Americans. However, work in this area is growing quickly, with much of it focusing on the academic problems and prospects of African-American (see Hare, 1985; Meece & Kurtz-Costes, 2001; Slaughter-Defoe, Nakagawa, Takanishi, & Johnson, 1990); Mexican-American (e.g., Padilla & Gonzalez, 2001; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001); and Asian-American youth (Fuligni & Tseng, 1999; Lee, 1994), both those born in this country and those who have immigrated here. Motivation theorists increasingly are interested in the applicability of their theoretical models to diverse groups of children. For instance, in a recent volume edited by McInerney and Van Etten (2004) theorists representing many of the theoretical perspectives reviewed in this chapter discussed the role of culture in their theoretical views.

This an important time for renewed interest in how culture, ethnicity, and immigration relate to children’s academic motivation, achievement, and future educational plans and attainments, as emerging and on-going demographic trends in the United States and in developed countries all over the world in show that large scale immigration is taking place. For instance, in the United States today, the school-aged population stands at about 54 million individuals and is as large and diverse as it has ever been in U.S. history (U.S. Department of Education, 2003a). As of 2002, approximately 40% of the entire school-aged population was a member of an ethnic group other than European-American, a large jump from the early 1970s that is due mainly to large-scale immigration from Mexico and certain East Asian countries (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). Thus, a significant proportion of the school-aged population today, approximately 20%, are “New Americans” who are growing up in immigrant families (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001; Suarez-Orozco & Suarez-Orozco, 2001).

This chapter is about motivation and not achievement, but it is important to understand achievement differences across groups in order to understand motivational differences. There are many individual differences within given groups, but overall Asian American children (both recent immigrants and those born here) perform better than many European American children. These two groups continue to outperform African American children and Latina and Mexican American children. Mexican American children have a very high school drop out rate relative to these other groups (US Department of Education, 2003b).

There are interesting generational differences in these effects, and also interesting gender differences. For instance, despite traditional socialization practices in many cultures that can exert strong pressures on females toward traditional gender roles associated with the home and not achievement in the “outside” world (e.g., Olson, 1997), there is evidence that second generation immigrant females, like U.S. born females in general, tend to outperform their male counterparts in school and aspire to go further educationally and occupationally as well (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001). Understanding motivational dynamics behind these achievement differences is an important task, and so we now turn to a discussion of the development of differences in motivation across different racial and ethnic groups.

Researchers interested in issues of culture, motivation, and achievement have examined the ways in which: (a) culture informs the development of self, motives and behavioral scripts associated

33

Motivation

with achievement (e.g., Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Ogbu, 1981); (b) culture shapes group members’ construal of the meaning of success and failure before and after achievement experiences (e.g., Heine et al., 2001; Grant & Dweck, 2001); (c) culture influences how universal and individual psychological needs are expressed (e.g., Chirkov, Ryan, Kim & Kaplan, 2003); and (d) culture influences engagement in the classroom (e.g., Greeno, Collins, & Resnick, 1996; Hickey & McCaslin, 2001; Roeser & Nasir, in press). We focus on the first three of these as a package in this section, and the fourth in the section on school influences on motivation.

Contemporary cultural psychology focuses on variation in the self linked to culture-specific socialization practices. One major distinction in this work socialization practices anchored in more individualistic (priority place on goals and preferences of the self) and those anchored in more collectivist (priority placed on needs and norms of the group) cultural traditions (Triandis & Suh, 2002). Markus and Kitayama (1991) developed the notion of “cultural frame” as a way of describing how cultural socialization practices come to literally inform the self. Cultural frames are meaning systems comprised of language, tacit social understandings, and scripts for enacting these social understandings in daily life. Individual’s self construals (i.e. the individual’s understandings about what it means to be a person in the world) are a critical component of these cultural frames. Markus and Kitayama (1991) outlined two different cultural frames, each associated with a specific self-construal: independence and interdependence. In the independent construal of self, individuals come to see themselves as autonomous, self-contained, unique from others, and assertive in pursuing personal goals and desires. In contrast, in the interdependent self-construal, individuals assign primary significance to others in defining the self, feel a fundamental sense of connectedness to others, and attend, first and foremost, to social roles, in-group norms, and obligations and responsibilities to others (see Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002, for a comprehensive review of different strands of research on these two construals). Self-construals are assumed to be the seedbed of goals and motives, including one’s achievement-related goals and motives.

Although just beginning, research relating culture to motivation in this area tends to examine how (culturally-informed) self-construals influence (a) the kinds of motivations that are prevalent for members of different cultural groups (the issue of approach and avoidance motivation); (b) the kinds of values and goals that are taken up into the self by members of different cultural groups (the issue of diversity in goal content), and (c) the kinds of meanings that individuals from different cultural groups make both before and after engaging with an achievement task (issues of meaning and appraisal). For example, Elliot, Chirkov, Kim & Sheldon (2001) hypothesized that individualistic self-construals should promote approach motivation in which goals associated with self-assertion are focal; in contrast, interdependent self-construals should promote avoidance motivation in which goals associated with the reduction of group discord are focal. They found some support for these hypotheses in a cross-cultural study of college students. Among non-Asian college students, small correlations exist between self-as-independent and approach goals and between self-as-interdependent and avoidance goals. Both Asian-American college students and students from more collectivist societies (Korea and Russia) report higher levels of avoidance motivation than European-American college students.

These findings are consistent with studies suggesting that both the level and impact of avoidance motivation on achievement may be greater among individuals from cultural groups that emphasize interdependence and group membership. For instance, Eaton and Dembo (1997) found that the fear of failure (an avoidance motive) best predicted 9th grade Asian and Asian-American students’ performance on an intellectual task; in contrast, the non-Asian students’ performance was best predicted by their beliefs about the incremental nature of intelligence, the importance of effort, and their self-efficacy. The authors interpreted these findings in relation to cultural dimensions of Asian cultures such as collectivism in which avoidance motives serve the function of maintaining group harmony.

Looking more directly at the association of culture to individual’s view of such basic universal needs as autonomy, Chirkov et al. (2003) tested the proposition that individuals can “take up” cultural practices associated with collectivism and individualism in either a self-determined (autonomous) or an other-controlled (heteronymous) way in a study of undergraduates in Turkey, Russia, the United States, and South Korea. Defining autonomy in terms of individuals’ self-reported level of internalization of various collectivist or individualistic cultural practices, they found considerable variation in the extent to which individuals within any culture took up and internalized supposedly focal cultural practices. Despite this variation, Americans saw their culture as relatively individualistic, South Koreans saw their culture as relatively collectivistic, and Russians saw their culture as a mixture of both. Further, the greater the degree of internalization of any type of cultural practice (whether collectivist or individualist), the greater the

34

Motivation

association of that belief with well being. The extension of this work to examine how such cultural orientations, and their level of internalization, affect young people’s goals and values in relation to education is just beginning.

Researchers also have looked at racial and ethnic group differences in the achievement beliefs, values, and goals we have been discussing, and we turn to that work next.

Racial and Ethnic Group Differences in Children's Competence, Control, and Attribution Beliefs

Graham (1994) reviewed the literature on differences between African-American and European-American students on such motivational constructs as need for achievement, locus of control, achievement attributions, and ability beliefs and expectancies. She concluded that, in general, the differences are not very large. Further, she argued that many existing studies have not adequately distinguished between race and socioeconomic status, making it very difficult to interpret any differences that emerge. Cooper and Dorr (1995) did a meta-analysis of many of the same studies reviewed by Graham. There were important points of agreement across the two reviews, but Cooper and Dorr concluded that there is evidence suggesting race differences in need for achievement favoring Whites, especially in lower SES and younger samples.

Research on competence beliefs and expectancies has revealed more optimism among African- American children than among European-American children, even when the European-American children are achieving higher marks (e.g., Stevenson, Chen, & Uttal, 1990). But more importantly, in Stevenson et al. (1990) the European-American children's ratings of their ability related significantly to their performance, whereas the African- American children's did not. Graham (1994) suggested the following explanations: (1) African- American and European- American children may use different social comparison groups to help judge their own abilities; and (2) African- American children may say they are doing well to protect their general self-esteem, and may also devalue or disidentify academic activities at which they do poorly in order to protect their self-esteem. However, neither of these explanations has been adequately tested. If African- American children's competence-related beliefs indeed do not predict their school performance, then questions must be raised about how relevant the theories considered in this chapter are for understanding these children's motivation.

Racial and Ethnic Group Differences in Achievement Values and Goals

There are few ethnic comparative studies specifically focused on the kinds of achievement values measured by Eccles, Wigfield, and their colleagues, or of the kinds of goals measured by Nicholls, Dweck, Ames, and Wentzel. Researchers studying minority children's achievement values have focused instead on the broader valuing of school by minority children and their parents. In general, these researchers find that minority children and parents highly value school (particularly during the elementary school years), and have high educational aspirations for their children (e.g., Stevenson et al., 1990; Galper, Wigfield, & Seefeldt, 1997). However, the many difficulties associated with poverty may make these educational aspirations difficult to attain (see Duncan, Brooks-Gunn, & Klebanov, 1994; Huston, McLoyd, & Coll, 1994; McLoyd, 1990).

In two studies that did examine between-group differences in the achievement values among Latino, African-American, and White youth, Graham, Taylor, and Hudley (1998) and Graham and Taylor (2002) used a peer nomination technique to assess group differences in achievement values. Participants indicated which children in their class they admired, respected, and wanted to be liked, and Graham and her colleagues argued that this is one way to gauge what children value. Results showed that white, Latino, and African American girls chose high achieving girls as those whom they admired, respected, and wanted to be like. For boys this was only true for white boys; the other two groups of boys admired low achievers more. In a third study they looked at this issue developmentally, and found that in second and fourth grades all children were more likely to nominate higher achievers. In 7th grade the sex-differentiated pattern for the different groups emerged. This intriguing work needs to be followed up to look more closely at why the nomination patterns shift between fourth and seventh grades; and what it is about entering adolescent and puberty that seems to cause many African- and Mexican-American youth to endorse values and role-models that exclude school achievement (e.g., Tatum, 1997).

In a study of high school students in Australia, McInerney, Hinkley, Dowson, & Van Etten (1998) tested whether or not significant cultural differences between Anglo, immigrant, and Aboriginal Australians would eventuate in different achievement goal profiles. The found that Aboriginals were lower on mastery and performance goals compared to the Anglo and immigrant Australians. Nonetheless, mastery goals were

35

Motivation

positively associated with achievement for all groups. That mastery goals may be interpreted differently by members of different cultural groups – mastery as a means of self-improvement and role fulfillment (interdependent self) or mastery as a means of self-improvement and personal success (independent self) –may explain why this goal seems to operate effectively across a wide diversity of cultural settings (Urdan, 1997).

Race, Ethnicity and Motivation at the Interface Between Expectancies and Values

Researchers interested in ethnic and racial differences in achievement have proposed models linking social roles, competence-related beliefs, and values. For example, Steele (1992, 1997) proposed stereotype vulnerability and disidentification to help explain the underachievement of African- American students (see also Aronson, 2002, Aronson & Steele, in press): Confronted throughout their school career with mixed messages about their competence and their potential and with the widespread negative cultural stereotypes about their academic potential and motivation, African- American students should find it difficult to concentrate fully on their school work due to the anxiety induced by their stereotype vulnerability (for support see Steele & Aronson, 1995). In turn, to protect their self-esteem, they should disidentify with academic achievement leading to both a lowering of the value they attach to academic achievement and a detachment of their self-esteem from both positive and the negative academic experiences. In support, several researchers have found that academic self-concept of ability is less predictive of general self-esteem for some African- American children (Winston, Eccles, Senior, & Vida, 1997). A key mediator of this process is African-Americans beliefs about the nature of their intelligence (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). In a recent experimental intervention with college students, Aronson, Fried, & Good (2001) found that by encouraging African-American college students to adopt a mindset in which they viewed their own intelligence as malleable, there were able to increase their enjoyment and engagement in academics as well as their grades compared to controls. This exciting research suggests have interventions at the level of the meaning of intelligence and the purpose of learning may bear fruit for ameliorating the effect of stereotype threat on the achievement of African-Americans.

Fordham and Ogbu (1986) have made a similar argument linking African- American students' perception of limited future job opportunities to lowered academic motivation: Since society and schools give African- American youth the dual message that academic achievement is unlikely to lead to positive adult outcomes for them and that they are not valued by the system, some African- American youth may create an oppositional culture that rejects the value of academic achievement. Ogbu (1992) discussed how this dynamic will be stronger for involuntary minorities who continue to be discriminated against by mainstream American culture (e.g., African- Americans) than for voluntary minority immigrant groups (e.g., recent immigrants from Southeast Asia). Although voluntary minorities have initial barriers to overcome due to language and cultural differences, these barriers can be overcome somewhat more easily than the racism faced by involuntary minorities, giving voluntary minorities greater access to mainstream culture and its benefits. This analysis is intriguing, but may oversimplify the nature of different kinds of immigrants and not attend enough to individual differences within these groups.

Contrary to this view, several investigators found no evidence of greater disidentification with school among African- American students (e.g., Spencer, Noll, Stoltzfus, & Harpalani, 2001; Steinberg, Dornbusch, & Brown, 1992; Taylor et al., 1994). But several studies show that disidentification, particularly as a result of inequitable treatment and failure experiences at school, undermines achievement and academic motivation (e.g., see Finn, 1989; Taylor et al., 1994). It is likely that some students, particularly members of involuntary minority groups, will have these experiences as they pass through the secondary school system. Longitudinal studies of the process of disidentification and how to ameliorate it when it occurs are needed.

In summary, as researchers continue to highlight the importance of understanding racial, ethnic, and immigrant variations in educational achievement given the demographic trends in our society (Kao & Thompson, 2003; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001), a deeper understanding of the role of academic motivational processes in explaining such variation in achievement behavior among different cultural, ethnic, and racial groups will continue to be critical topics of study in the developmental literature, as will further work that will help us to understand better the factors influencing the development of motivation in diverse groups of children (Graham, 1994; Pintrich, 2003).

36

Motivation

THE SOCIALIZATION OF MOTIVATION: PARENTAL INFLUENCES

In the previous edition of this chapter, Eccles et al. (1998) reviewed the early literature on how parents influence child motivation through socialization process. In the last decade, the socialization research has become more focused and has begun to examine the various processes and pathways where socialization strategies might be exerting their influence (see Collins, Maccoby, Steinberg, Hetherington, & Bornstein, 2000). The research has also become more general as the research has moved from the laboratory settings in which researchers link specific parenting practices to specific motivational constructs but generalizability is limited, to large-scale nationally representative studies of child development and parenting (e.g. Panel Study of Income Dynamics-Child Development Supplement, National Longitudinal Study of Youth, and Early Childhood Longitudinal Study) that use global indicators of parenting practices and beliefs, and of motivational and performance outcomes have been collected. This transition to more complicated examination of socialization processes has been motivated by both advances in theory as well as advances in statistical and analytic techniques that have allowed for more complicated analyses of parent influence to be examined and for moderators and mediators of this influence to be taken into account. In both small and large-scale studies, there have been attempts to link parenting practices both to their antecedents and to their socialization consequences. Figure 2 provides a general overview of the types of associations tested. Although this specific model was proposed and elaborated by Eccles and her colleagues (Barber & Eccles, 1992; Eccles, 1989; 1993; Eccles & Harold, 1993), similar social cognitive mediational models of parental behavior and influence have been proposed by several other researchers (e.g., Alexander & Entwisle, 1988; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998; Clark, 1983; Goodenow & Collins, 1990; Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994; Stevenson et al., 1990).

-Insert Figure 2 about here-

Although there is extensive work on some components of this model, very few studies include the several components underlying parenting behaviors outlined in Box E. Much of this literature focuses on the association of the exogenous characteristics (Boxes A and B) with parents' beliefs (Box C) or child outcomes (Box F; e.g., linking family socioeconomic status and/or ethnicity with parents’ child-specific beliefs [Box D], specific parenting practices [Box E], and children’s academic outcomes [Box F]; Entwisle & Alexander, 1990; Schneider & Coleman, 1993; Steinberg et al., 1992; Stevenson et al., 1990). Recently, however, research is beginning to appear that directly examines the mediating and moderating hypotheses implied in Figure 2 on achievement outcomes (Corwyn & Bradley, 2003; Davis-Kean, in press; Davis-Kean & Magnuson, 2004). In general, this research has focused on the role that parent beliefs and behaviors may play in the socialization of achievement motivation in the individual child. This research indicates that parent’s beliefs and behaviors are critical in setting a climate for children’s motivation development by providing various activities or resources in the home environment that may provide stimulation to pursue various activities across time. For example, recent work on activity involvement suggests that parents play a role in promoting certain types of involvement in academic and sports domain in the early elementary years and that this emphasis translates into greater interest and motivation to continue with these activities overtime and to choice course work and extracurricular activities consistent with these activities in adolescence (Simpkins, Fredricks, Davis-Kean, & Eccles, 2004). It is only in the past few years that this specific research has started to develop and in general the research remains quite general; for example, linking family SES and general family socialization styles to general school achievement, achievement motivation and other general motivational constructs such mastery orientation, learned helplessness, and school engagement.

Family Demographic Characteristics

Researchers in sociology, economics, and psychology have documented the importance of such factors as family structure, family size, parents' financial resources, parents' education, parents’ occupation, community characteristics, and dramatic changes in the family's economic resources in shaping children's academic motivation and achievement (e.g., Alexander & Entwisle, 1988; Corwyn & Bradley, 2003; Marjoribanks, 2002; Teachman, Paasch, & Carver, 1997; Thompson, Alexander, & Entwisle, 1988; Yeung, Linver, & Brooks-Gunn, 2002). Several mechanisms could account for these associations. First, family demographics could affect children’s motivation indirectly through their association with both parent beliefs and practices and the opportunity structures in the child's environment. For example, parents with more education are more likely to believe that involvement in their children’s education and intellectual development is important, to be actively

37

Motivation

involved with the children’s education, and to have intellectually stimulating materials in their home (e.g., Davis-Kean & Magnuson, 2004; DeBaryshe et al., 1993; Schneider & Coleman, 1993)

Second, some demographic characteristics could influence motivation indirectly through the competing demands they place on parents' time and energy. For example, the negative association of single parent status, time spent at work, and large family size on children’s school achievement might reflect the fact that these factors reduce the time and energy parents have for engaging their children in activities that foster high motivation (e.g., Marjoribanks, 2002; Schneider & Coleman, 1993). Similarly, the psychological stress associated with some demographic factors could influence parents’ ability to engage in the kinds of behaviors associated with high motivation. Ample evidence documents how much harder it is to do a good job of parenting if one lives in a high-risk neighborhood or if one is financially stressed (e.g., Conger, Wallace, Sun, Simons, McLoyd, & Brody, 2002; Elder, Eccles, Ardelt, & Lord, 1995; Furstenberg, Cook, Eccles, Elder, & Sameroff, 1999; McLoyd, 1990; Mistry, Vandewater, Huston, & McLoyd, 2002). Not only do such parents have limited resources to implement whatever strategies they think might be effective, they also have to cope with more external stressors than middle class families living in stable, resource rich neighborhoods. Not surprisingly, their children also evidence less positive motivation toward conventional school success.

Third, demographic characteristics can also affect parents’ perceptions of, and expectations for, their children. Both parent educational level and family income are related positively to parents’ expectations regarding both their children’s immediate school success and long-term educational prospects (e.g., Alexander & Entwisle, 1988; Davis-Kean, Malanchuk, Peck & Eccles, 2003; Teachman et al., 1997). Similarly, divorced parents have lower expectations for their children’s academic achievement (Barber & Eccles, 1992). Ogbu has highlighted this mechanism as one way poverty and anticipated discrimination can undermine academic motivation in some minority populations: If parents believe that there are limited opportunities for their children to obtain conventional forms of success, they are likely to shift their socialization efforts towards other goals and interests (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu, 1985).

Fourth, demographic characteristics can influence parents’ beliefs and behaviors, and children’s outcomes, in even less direct ways like those associated with role modeling. Family demographic characteristics are often associated with things like parents’ jobs and leisure time activities, and with the kinds of role models children see outside the home. These behaviors and models can influence children’s achievement goals, values, and self-perceptions through observational learning (Furstenberg et al., 1999; Kohn, 1977). Very little work has addressed this hypothesis directly. Instead the mechanisms are typically inferred from correlational findings.

Fifth, demographic characteristics such as culture and ethnicity can influence parents’ behaviors and children’s motivation through mechanism linked directly to values, goals, and general belief systems (e.g., Garcia Coll & Pachter, 2002; Gutman & Midgley, 2000; Luster, Rhoades, & Haas, 1989). For example, Ogbu (1985) has argued that parents value those characteristics that they assume will help their children succeed in their world. Other scholars describe cultural differences in valued activities, motivational orientation and behavioral styles (e.g., Stevenson et al., 1990; Super & Harkness, 2002). Such differences can affect the socialization of motivated behavior through variations in: (a) valued activities (e.g., athletic versus musical competence), (b) valued goals (e.g., communal goals versus individualistic goals, mastery versus performance goals, doing versus being goals), and (c) approved means of achieving one’s goals (e.g., competitive versus co-operative means). Further, there are cultural differences in the extent to which perceived family obligations influence children’s motivation and achievement. Urdan & Giancarlo (2001) found that children from collectivist cultures had a stronger sense of obligation to their families that extended to the importance of doing well in school. Roeser, Lowe, Sattler, Gehlbach, & Strobel (2003) examined two kinds of family obligation goals that might motivate 8 th grade Latino/as’ academic achievement – those associated with making their parents proud through academic accomplishment (approach goals); and those associated with avoiding dishonoring the family through academic failure (avoidance goals). Compared to European-American early adolescents, the Latino adolescents were more likely to endorse the pursuit of both types of goals (Roeser & Rodriquez, 2004) and family goals predicted Latino students’ language achievement in school even after controlling for a host of sociodemographic, cognitive aptitude, and other motivational variables.

Researchers studying cultural differences in school achievement have found cultural differences in parents’ expectations and achievement-related beliefs, and linked them to cultural differences in achievement. For example the work by Stevenson and his colleagues has demonstrated that European-American parents, compared to Japanese parents, overestimate their children’s academic abilities, are less aware of their children’s

38

Motivation

academic difficulties, and are more satisfied with school performance that falls below their expectations (e.g., Crystal & Stevenson, 1991). Similarly, Stevenson et al. (1990) found differences in parents' achievement beliefs across African- American, Hispanic, and European-American parents in the U. S.

In summary, there are many ways for family demographic characteristics to directly or indirectly affect motivation. It is important to note, however, that even though family demographic characteristics have been linked repeatedly to children’s school achievement; their effects are almost always indirect, mediated by their association with parents’ beliefs, practices, and psychological resources. In addition, parents’ beliefs and psychological and social resources can over ride the effects of even the most stressful demographic characteristics on children’s school achievement and motivation (e.g., Clark, 1983; McLoyd, 1990). Finally, there are often complex interactions among various demographic characteristics in predicting either parenting beliefs and practices or child outcomes.

General Childrearing Climate

Historically, researchers studying parental influence have focused on the impact of the general patterns and philosophy of child rearing on children's overall orientation toward achievement. Researchers have related a set of general behaviors and beliefs to the development of self-esteem, achievement motivation, locus of control, sense of personal efficacy, and so on. The variables investigated have included the general emotional warmth and supportiveness in the home (e.g., Connell, Halpren-Felsher, Clifford, Crichlow, & Usinger, 1995; Gutman, Sameroff & Eccles, 2002; Wagner & Phillips, 1992) valuing of achievement (e.g., DeBaryshe, 1995; Clark, 1983); general parental childrearing beliefs and theories, values and goals, as well as sex-typed goals and cultural beliefs, goals, and values (e.g., Goodenow & Collins, 1990; Miller & Davis, 1992); general childrearing style as well as authority structure, discipline tactics, and general interaction patterns (e.g., DeBaryshe et al., 1993; Lord et al., 1994; Steinberg et al., 1992; Yee & Flanagan, 1985); parental locus of control and personal efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Gutman, et al., 2002); and communicative style and teaching style (McGillicuddy-De Lisi & Sigel, 1991). Similarly, researchers have documented the benefits of active involvement with, and monitoring of, children’s and adolescents’ school work (e.g., Clark, 1993; Connell et al., 1994; Eccles, 1993; Schneider & Coleman, 1993; Stevenson et al., 1990; Steinberg, et al., 1992).

Several investigators have stressed an integrated view of how these various parenting characteristics work together to produce optimal motivational outcomes. For example, Grolnick and Ryan (1989) stressed the interplay of three components of general parenting in promoting self-determination in children and adolescents: involvement and interest in the child’s activities, support for autonomous behaviors, and adequate structure (e.g., Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Skinner, 1990). Grolnick and colleagues (2002) suggest that these parenting behaviors are important in helping children form a sense of autonomy and interest in activities that leads to greater achievement performance and a reduction in learning problems. Similarly, Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, & Whalen (1993) suggest the positive motivational developmental is optimized when there is appropriate synergy in the family’s provision of support, harmony, involvement, and freedom. Finally, Eccles (1993) stressed the importance of emotional support, role models, and the right balance between structure, control, challenge, and developmentally appropriate levels of support for autonomy. This balance depends on cultural systems, on the specific context in which the family is living, the age of the child, and other individual characteristics.

While the magnitude of effects varies by race/ethnicity, sex, social economic class, and nationality, there is consensus that these general parental practices do impact on a variety of indicators of children's motivation and motivated behavior (e.g., Eccles, 1993; Stevenson & Baker, 1987). The results are consistent with three general principles: appropriate levels of structure (as evident in Vygotsky's notion of appropriate scaffolding and Hunt and Paraskevopoulos’s (1980) notion of good match), consistent and supportive parenting, and observational learning. Families who know enough about their child to provide the right amount of challenge with the right amount of support seem more likely to produce highly competent and motivated children. These parents are also likely to be able to adjust their behavior to meet the changing developmental needs and competencies of their children. Families that provide a positive emotional environment are more likely to produce children who want to internalize the parents' values and goals and therefore want to imitate the behaviors being modeled by their parents. Consequently, children growing up in these homes are likely to develop a positive achievement orientation if their parents provide such a model and value those specific tasks, goals, and means of achieving one’s goals valued by their parents.

39

Motivation

General Beliefs

Researchers have shown that parents' general beliefs such as valuing of achievement and school competence, general parental childrearing beliefs and theories, values and goals, sex-typed ideologies and goals, and culturally-based beliefs, goals, and values are linked to parenting behaviors in the school achievement arena in the predicted direction (e.g., Eccles, 1993; Eccles Freedman-Doan, Frome, & Yoon, 2000; Goodenow & Collins, 1990; Jacobs & Eccles, 2000; Miller, 1988; Sigel et al., 1992). We are beginning to know more about how these general beliefs relate to specific behaviors and motivational beliefs across various achievement-related activity domains (e.g. see). Figure 2 depicts a general overview of how one might think about these inter-relationships. Several important questions are suggested by this depiction: First, what is the relation of parents' general beliefs and practices to domain and child specific parental beliefs, values, and practices? For example, do parents' gender-role stereotypes affect their perceptions of their own child's abilities in various activity domains? Relevant research is reviewed later.

Similarly, do parents' beliefs regarding the nature of ability affect their motivational parenting? Dweck has hypothesized that different ways of viewing the nature of ability and incompetence account for individual differences in academic achievement orientation (Dweck, 2002). As discussed earlier, children who think that incompetence is a temporary and modifiable state should respond to failure with increased mastery efforts more than children who think that current incompetence is a sign of insufficient aptitude that cannot be modified. It is likely that parents also differ in their beliefs regarding the origins of individual differences in competence, the meaning of failure, and the most adaptive responses to failure. These beliefs should influence both their response to their children’s failures and their efforts to help their children acquire new competencies and interests. Hokoda and Fincham (1995) provide support for these ideas.

Second, do cultural beliefs about things like the nature of ability affect the attributions parents' provide to their children for the child's successes and failures? Hess and his colleagues (e.g., Hess, Chih-Mei, & McDevitt, 1987; Holloway, 1988) and Stevenson and his colleagues (Lee, Ichikama, & Stevenson, 1987; Stevenson et al., 1990) have found that Japanese and Chinese parents make different causal attributions than European-American parents for their children's school performances with Japanese and Chinese parents emphasizing effort and hard work and European-American parents emphasizing natural talent. Similarly, cultural differences in beliefs regarding the nature of ability and competence should relate to the kinds of statements parents make to their children about the origins of individual differences in performance - statements such as "you have to be born with math talent" versus "anyone can be good at math if they just work hard enough" (Holloway, 1988; Stevenson et al., 1990). An interesting cross-cultural difference in the relation between the age of the child and parents' beliefs regarding ability is also emerging. Knight (1981) found that European Australian parents become more nativist in their view of their children's cognitive abilities as their children get older. In contrast, Japanese mothers become less nativist as their children get older.

Child-Specific Beliefs, Values, and Perceptions: Parents as Interpreters of Competence-Relevant Information

Parents hold many specific beliefs about their children’s abilities, which, in turn, affect motivationally linked outcomes, such as the well established positive link between parents’ educational expectations and academic motivation and performance (e.g., Alexander, Entwisle, & Bedinger, 1994; Brooks-Gunn, Guo, & Furstenberg, 1993; Davis- Kean & Schnabel, 2002; Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994; Lee & Croninger, 1994; Schneider & Coleman, 1993). Along with others, Eccles (1993) suggested the following specific parental beliefs as particularly likely influences on children’s motivation: (1) causal attributions for their children's performance in each domain; (2) perceptions of the difficulty of various tasks for their children; (3) expectations for their children's probable success and confidence in their children's abilities; (4) beliefs regarding the value of various tasks and activities coupled with the extent to which parents believe they should encourage their children to master various tasks; (5) differential achievement standards across various activity domains; and (6) beliefs about the external barriers to success coupled with beliefs regarding both effective strategies to overcome these barriers and their own sense of efficacy to implement these strategies for each child.

Such beliefs and messages, particularly those associated with parents’ perceptions of their children’s competencies and likely success, influence children's self and task beliefs (e.g., Fredricks & Eccles, 2002; Frome & Eccles, 1998; Miller, Manhal & Mee, 1991; Pallas et al., 1994; Stevenson et al., 1990). For example, parents'

40

Motivation

perceptions of their adolescents’ abilities are significant predictors of adolescents' estimates of their own ability and interest in math, English, and sports even after the significant positive relation of the child's actual performance to both the parents' and adolescents' perceptions of the adolescents' domain specific abilities is controlled (Eccles, 1993; Fredricks & Eccles, 2002; Jacobs, 1992; Jacobs & Eccles, 1992). Furthermore, Eccles and her colleagues found support for the hypothesized causal direction of this relationship using longitudinal panel analyses (Eccles, 1993; Eccles et al., 2000; Fredricks & Eccles, 2002; Yoon, Wigfield, & Eccles 1993). In addition, in this same longitudinal study (The Michigan Study of Adolescent Life Transitions - MSALT), there was a negative relation between mothers' perceptions of their adolescents’ English ability and the adolescents’ perceptions of their own math ability. Individuals use a variety of information in deciding how good they are in various domains including their relative performances across various domains (i.e., they may decide they are very good at math because they find it easier to do better in math than in other school subjects; see Eccles, 1987; Marsh, 1990a). These results suggest that a similar phenomenon may characterize the impact of parents' perceptions of their children's abilities on the development of the children's self-perceptions. The adolescents in this study had lower estimates of their math ability than one would have predicted based on their teachers' and their mothers' rating of their math ability if their mothers also thought that they were better in English than in math (Eccles et al., 1991).

Influences on parents' perceptions of their children's competencies. How do parents' form their impressions of their children's abilities? Parents appear to rely quite heavily on objective feedback, such as school grades (Alexander, Entwisle, & Bedinger, 1994; Arbreton & Eccles, 1994). The causal attributions parents make for their children’s performances should also influence parents’ perceptions. Support for this hypothesis is provided by Arbreton, Eccles, & Harold’s (1994) longitudinal study. They found that parents’ attributions of success to talent lead to increments in the parents’ perceptions of their children’s abilities in math, English, and sports and decrements in parents’ estimates of how hard their children will have to work in order to be successful in math, English, and sports even after appropriate controls for prior performance and prior ability ratings are included.

Researchers have also assessed sex of child effects on parents’ attributional patterns to help explain the gender role stereotypic distortions in parents’ impression of their children's academic and non-academic abilities that exist from a very early age on, even after one controls for actual performance differences (e.g. Eccles, 1993, 1994; Jacobs, 1992; Jacobs & Eccles, 1992). For example, in Eccles et al. (1992), mothers gave gender-role stereotypic causal attributions for their adolescent children’s successes and failures in mathematics, reading and sports: sons' successes in math and sports were more likely to be attributed to natural talent than daughters'; daughters' success in English was more likely to be attributed to natural talent than sons'. Furthermore, as predicted, the sex differences in these mothers’ ratings of their adolescents’ abilities in each domain were substantially reduced once these sex differences in the mothers’ causal attributions was controlled - supporting the hypothesis that parents’ gender-role stereotyped causal attributions mediate parents' gender-role stereotyped perceptions of their children's math competence. Using path analytic techniques, Jacobs and Eccles (1992) tested whether parents’ gender-role stereotypes generalized to their perceptions of their own children's ability. They found that parents who endorsed gender-role stereotypes regarding which sex is most interested in, and has the most natural talent for, math, English, and sports also distorted their ratings of their own children’s abilities in each of these domains in the gender-role stereotypic direction.

Child Specific Beliefs, Values, and Perceptions: Parents as Interpreters of Task Value

Parents may convey differential task values through explicit rewards and encouragement for participating in some activities rather than others. Similarly, parents may influence children's interests and aspirations, particularly with regard to future educational and vocational options, through explicit and implicit messages they provide as they "counsel" children or work with them on different academic activities (e.g., Eccles & Harold, 1993; Jacobs & Eccles, 2000; Tenenbaum & Leaper, 2003). For instance, Tenenbaum and Leaper found that fathers used higher-order conceptual language when discussing physics activities with sons than with daughters, which may gave boys and girls different messages about their ability in science. Whether this encouragement directly affects either the value the children attach to math or their participation in math activities has not been established.

41

Motivation

Provisions of Specific Experiences at Home

There is ample evidence that parents influence their children's motivation through the specific types of learning experiences they provide for their children. For example, researchers have shown that reading to one’s preschool children and providing reading materials in the home predicts the children's later reading achievement and motivation (e.g., Davis-Kean & Eccles, 2003; Linver, Brooks-Gunn, & Kohen, 2002; Wigfield & Asher, 1984). Such experience likely influence both the child’s skill levels and the child’s interest in doing these activities, both of which, in turn, have a positive impact on the child’s transition into elementary school and subsequent educational success (Entwisle & Alexander, 1993). Similarly, by providing the specific toys, home environment, and cultural and recreational activities for their children, parents structure their children's experiences (Jacobs, Davis-Kean, Bleeker, Eccles, & Malanchuk, 2004). However, the extent to which these experiences actually influence children’s motivation should depend on the affective and motivational climate that is created by parents when the children are engaged with any particular experience. Finally, the differential provision of such experiences to girls and boys and to children from various ethnic groups might explain group differences in subsequent motivation to engage various types of achievement activities (see Jacobs et al. in press for discussion vis-à-vis gender).

Another avenue that parents indirectly influence the provisions in the home is through the way they manage the family. Parents manage the resources and time of their children and thus choice or help in choosing activities for their child that may increase interest and competence in these areas (Davis-Kean & Eccles, 1999; Simpkins, et al, 2004). Many parents try to organize and arrange their children's social environments in order to promote opportunities, to expose their children to particular experiences and value systems, and to restrict dangers and exposure to undesirable influences. Consider, for example, the amount of attention some parents give to the choice of child care during early childhood, to picking a place to live, and to selecting appropriate after-school and summer activities for their children in order to ensure desirable schools and appropriate playmates for their children and to help their children acquire particular skills and interests. In the arena of school achievement, parents’ engagement in managing their children experiences vis-à-vis intellectual skills (e.g., reading, acquisition of general information, and mastering school assignments) is directly and powerfully related to children’s subsequent academic success even in stressful contexts such as poverty (Furstenberg et al., 1999). Given the consistency of the evidence in this one domain, understanding the specific ways parents organize and manage their children's experiences across a wide range of activities is a promising approach to understanding how parents shape individual differences in specific skills, self perceptions, interests, and activity preferences. For example, children should be most likely to acquire those skills that their parents make sure they have the opportunity to learn and practice.

Summary

The studies reviewed suggest a multivariate model of the relation between antecedent child-rearing variables and the development of achievement orientation: The development of achievement motivation likely depends on the presence of several variables interacting with each other, and mediating and moderating children's motivation. Specifically, proper timing of demands creates a situation in which the child can develop his/her sense of competence in dealing with his environment. An optimally warm and supportive environment creates a situation in which the child will choose his parents as role models. The presence of high yet realistic expectations creates a demand situation in which the child will perform in accord with the expectancies of the parents. Finally, the ability level of the child must be such that attainment of the expected level of performance is within his/her capacity. All these factors, as well as the availability of appropriate role models, are essential for the child to develop a positive, achievement orientation. The exact way this orientation will be manifest is likely dependent on the values the child has learned, which are directly influenced by the culture in which the family lives and the social roles that the child is being socialized to assume.

THE SOCIALIZATION OF MOTIVATION: INFLUENCES OF SCHOOL/INSTRUCTIONAL CONTEXTS AND SCHOOL TRANSITIONS

In this section we review work on two broad topics, how teachers, classrooms contexts, and school contexts influence motivation; and how school transitions influence children’s motivation. Given space limitations, we provide only an overview of the types of work being done in these areas. There is a continuing trend for motivational researchers to study contextual influences on motivation and the work on motivation in

42

Motivation

context has burgeoned since the last edition of this handbook was published (see Hickey & McCaslin, 2001; Urdan, 1999, for further discussion of this topic).

Much of the recent work is directly related to notion inherent in person environment fit perspectives. The researchers, either implicitly or explicitly, assume that motivation will be optimized in learning settings that meet individual’s basic and developmental needs. The exact nature of the basic or universal needs has been articulated in various ways. Deci, Ryan, Connell and their colleagues focus attention on three basic needs: competence, relatedness, and autonomy (e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2002). Eccles suggested that the need to matter (e.g., to make a real and meaningful difference in one’s social world) is an additional universal value likely to influence achievement-related motivation particularly as individuals’ mature into and through adolescence (Eccles, 2004). Eccles, Midgley and their colleagues (e.g., Eccles et al., 1993) articulated a set of changing developmental needs that are often not meet in school settings as children move from elementary school into secondary school. We believe that many of the constructs discussed in the next sections relate directly to these basic and developmental needs and thus influence individuals’ motivation through their impact on the individuals’ believing and feeling that their cognitive, emotional and social needs are being met.

Teacher Beliefs and General Instructional Practices Within the ClassroomTeachers’ General Expectations and Sense of Their Own Efficacy

Both teachers’ general expectations for their students’ performance and teachers’ confidence in their own teaching efficacy (e.g., confidence in their ability to influence their students through their teaching) predict students’ school achievement likely through their impact are on students’ sense of competence. When teachers hold high generalized expectations for student achievement and students perceive these expectations, students achieve more, experience a greater sense of esteem and competence as learners, and resist involvement in problem behaviors during both childhood and adolescence (Eccles et al. 1993; Lee & Smith, 2001; NRC, 2004; Weinstein, 1989). Similarly, teachers who feel they are able to reach even the most difficult students, who believe in their ability to affect students’ lives, and who believe that teachers are an important factor in determining developmental outcomes communicate such positive expectations and beliefs to their students (Lee & Smith, 2001; Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989; Roeser, Marachi, & Gehlbach, 2001; Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk-Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). Such expectations, when communicated to students, become internalized in positive self-appraisals that enhance both feelings of competence and worth, which, in turn, enhance engagement in the learning tasks offered in school ( Lee & Smith, 2001; NRC, 2002; Roeser, Eccles, & Sameroff, 1998). Differential Teacher Expectations

Equally important are the differential expectations teachers hold for various individuals within the same classroom and the differential treatment practices that sometimes accompany these expectations. These person-specific expectations may be one of the most direct social influences on students’ feelings of competence in classrooms. The research indicates that teacher-expectancy effects are mediated by the ways in which teachers interact with the students for whom they have high versus low expectations (Brophy, 1985; Eccles [Parsons] et al., 1983; Rosenthal, 1969; Weinstein, 1989). Whether the effects are positive or negative depends on the exact nature of these interactions. For example, a teacher can respond to low expectation by providing the kinds of help and structure that increase the student’s sense of competence and ability to master the material being presented. Alternatively, the teacher can respond in ways that communicate low expectations and little hope that the student will be able to master the material. In the latter case, the students’ own sense of competence should decrease and the student should disengage from the classroom’s learning agenda as much as is possible. It should be noted that teachers’ expectations for individual students are directly related to how well the student has done in the past (Jussim, Eccles, & Madon, 1996). What is critical is how these perceptions translate into the teachers’ actual behavioral interactions with each of the students in the class.

A great deal of this work has focused on differential treatment related to gender, race/ethnic group, and/or social class. There are small but fairly consistent negative effects of low teacher expectations on girls (for math and science), on minority children (for all subject areas), and on children from lower social class family backgrounds (again for all subject areas) (see Baron, Tom, & Cooper, 1985; Eccles & Wigfield, 1985; Ferguson, 1998; Jussim et al., 1996).

43

Motivation

Teacher-Student Relationships Many researchers have stressed the importance of human relationships for human development; the

clearest exemplar of this view in the motivation field is self-determination theorists, who posit relatedness as a basic human need (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Ryan & Deci, 2002). Consistent with these suggestions, there is strong evidence for the importance of positive teacher-student relationships and a sense of belonging for children’s development in school (L. Anderman, 1999; Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Lynch & Cicchetti, 1997; Wentzel, 2002a). Teachers who are trusting, caring, and respectful of students provide the kind of social-emotional support adolescents need to approach, engage, and persist on academic learning tasks and to develop positive achievement-related self-perceptions and values, high self esteem, and a sense of belonging and emotional comfort at school (Eccles et al., 1998; Goodenow, 1993; Midgley et al., 1989; Roeser & Eccles, 2000; Roeser, Midgley, & Urdan, 1996). In addition, teachers represent one stable source of adult models and mentors for children in a highly complex society. Teachers can provide guidance and assistance when social-emotional or academic problems arise, and may be particularly important in promoting developmental competence when conditions in the family and neighborhood do not (Eccles, et al., 1998; Lord et al., 1994; Simmons & Blyth, 1987).

Classroom Management Work related to classroom management focuses on two general issues: orderliness/predictability and

control/autonomy. We focus on the latter because issues of autonomy are so important to student motivation in this culture. Many researchers believe that classroom practices that support student autonomy are critical for fostering intrinsic motivation to learn and for supporting socioemotional development during childhood and adolescence (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Grolnick et al., 2002). Support for this hypothesis has been found in both laboratory and field-based studies (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Grolnick & Ryan, 1987). However, it is also critical that the teacher supports student autonomy in a context of adequate structure and orderliness (Skinner & Belmont, 1993). This issue is complicated by the fact that the right balance between adult-guided structure and opportunities for student autonomy changes as the students mature: older students desire more opportunities for autonomy and less adult-controlled structure. To the extent that the students do not experience these changes in the balance between structure and opportunities for autonomy as they pass through the K-12 school years, their school motivation should decline as they get older. The Nature of Academic Work

Many researchers believe that the meaningfulness of the academic work influences sustained attention, high investment of cognitive and affective resources in learning, and strong identification with educational goals and aims (NRC, 2004). In general, research supports this hypothesis: For example, students’ reports of high levels of boredom in school, low interest, and perceived irrelevance of the curriculum are associated with poor attention, diminished achievement, disengagement, and finally, alienation from school (e.g., Jackson & Davis, 2000; NRC, 2004; Roeser et al., 1998; Roeser, Strobel, & Quihuis, 2002). Unfortunately, evidence from several different perspectives suggests that the curriculum to which most students are exposed is often not particularly meaningful from either a cultural or a developmental perspective. Several researchers suggest that the disconnect of traditional curricula from the experiences of several cultural groups can explain the alienation of some group members from the educational process, sometimes leading to school drop-out (Dehyle & LeCompte, 1999; Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Sheets & Hollins, 1999; Valencia, 1991). There is also a disconnect between increases in students’ cognitive sophistication, life experiences, and identity needs and the nature of the curriculum as students move from the elementary into the secondary school years (Jackson & Davis, 2000; Lee & Smith, 2001; NRC, 2004). As one indication of this, middle school students report higher rates of boredom than elementary school students when doing schoolwork, especially passive work (e.g., listening to lectures), especially in social studies, math, and science (Larson & Richards, 1989). This could lead to some of the apathy problems discussed earlier.Integrated Approaches to Within Classroom Experiences

We have seen an increase over the last 20 years in studies that look at multiple aspects of the classroom simultaneously. During the last eight years this approach, in contrast to looking at single classroom or teacher characteristics one at a time, has predominated in keeping with our increasingly integrated view of motivation. In this section, we provide a couple of examples of this more integrated approach.

Rosenholtz and Simpson (1984) hypothesized that individualized versus whole group instruction, ability grouping practices, and the relatively public versus private nature of feedback work together to create a classroom environment that fundamentally shapes children’s school motivation . Specifically, they argued that these practices make ability differences salient and thereby undermine motivation, particularly of low achieving students, by increasing the salience of extrinsic motivators and ego-focused learning goals. Such motivational orientations, in turn, are hypothesized to lead to greater incidence of social comparison behaviors, and increased

44

Motivation

perception of one’s abilities as fixed entities rather than malleable ones. Mac Iver (1987) provided support for some of these predictions. More recently, the work of Midgley, Maehr and their colleagues has shown that school reform efforts designed to reduce these types of classroom practices, particularly those associated with socially comparative feedback and reward systems, and teachers’ use of competitive motivational strategies have positive consequences for adolescents’ academic motivation, persistence on difficult learning tasks, and socio-emotional development (Maehr & Midgley, 1996; Midgley, 2002).

Drawing upon similar insights from different theoretical traditions, Guthrie, Wigfield, and their colleagues developed an instructional program in reading (CORI - Concept Oriented Reading Instruction) focused on enhancing students’ reading motivation along with their reading comprehension. The program integrates instruction in reading and science and is based in part on principles derived from self-determination theory, self-efficacy theory, and expectancy-value theory (Wigfield & Tonks, 2004). Teachers work to enhance students’ motivation by providing content goals for their learning and by having students engage in hands-on activities in science that tie to the content goals. Students have a variety of interesting texts in their classrooms that tie directly to the hands-on activities and content goals. They are given autonomy with respect to which books to read, which questions to address, and the nature of the projects that they do. Students also collaborate extensively with each other (Guthrie, Wigfield, & Perencevich, 2004). Guthrie et al. (2004) found that CORI students surpassed students experiencing a cognitively based strategy instruction reading program in both reading motivation and reading comprehension. The more general implication of these results is that when teachers utilize teaching practices known to enhance student motivation their motivation indeed does grow.Gender Differences in Classroom Experiences

Research on gender differences in achievement is another example of an attempt to identify a broad set of classroom characteristics that influence students’ motivation; due to space limitations we discuss the example of gender differences in interest in math, physical science, and engineering (see Wigfield, Byrnes, & Eccles, in press, for a more detailed review). Courses in these subject areas are often taught in a manner that females find either boring, irrelevant to their interests, or threatening (Eccles, 1989; Hoffmann & Haeussler, 1995). Females respond more positively to math and science instruction when it is taught in a cooperative or individualized manner rather than a competitive manner, when it is taught from an applied/person centered perspective rather than a theoretical/abstract perspective, when it is taught using a hands-on approach rather than a "book learning" approach, when the teacher avoids sexism in its many subtle forms, and when the examples used to teach general concepts reflect both stereotypically female and male interests (e.g., using the heart as an illustration of the principles associated with pumps). The reason often given for these effects is the fit of the teaching style and format with females’ values, goals, motivational orientation, and learning styles (see Eccles, 1989; Krapp, Hidi, & Renninger, 1992). Interestingly, more males are also motivated by these same approaches suggesting that these characteristics fit well with a broad range of human needs Experiences of Racial/Ethnic Discrimination in Classrooms

Researchers interested in the relatively poor academic performance of children from some ethnic/racial groups have suggested another classroom level experience as critical for academic motivation and achievement: experiences of racial/ethnic discrimination (Essed, 1990; Feagin, 1992; Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Garcia Coll et al, 1996; Roeser et al., 1998; Ruggiero & Taylor, 1995; Taylor et al., 1994; Wong, Eccles, & Sameroff, 2003). Whereas elementary school-aged children may lack the requisite social understandings and cognitive skills to judge discrimination experiences (though not always – see Quintana & Vera, 1999), and may also have too little life exposure to such incidents to make them impactful; it is clear that beginning in early adolescence young people are more likely to say they have experienced discrimination, and these experiences are negatively associated with young people’s mental health and sometimes, their motivation in school (Quintana & Vera, 1999; Roeser et al., 1998; Szalacha, Erkut, Garcia-Coll, Alarcon, Field, & Ceder, 2003).

Two types of discrimination have been discussed: (1) anticipation of future discrimination in the labor market which might be seen as undermining the long term benefits of education (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986), and (2) the impact of daily experiences of discrimination on one’s mental health and academic motivation (Essed, 1990; Wong et al, 2003). Wong et al. (2003) found that anticipated future discrimination leads to increases in African American youth’s motivation to do well in school, which, in turn, leads to increases in academic performance. In this sample, anticipated future discrimination appeared to motivate the youth to do their very best so that they would be maximally equipped to deal with future discrimination (Eccles, 2004). In contrast, daily experiences of racial discrimination from their peers and teachers led to declines in school engagement, confidence in one’s academic competence and grades, along with increases in depression and anger. In a study of Asian, Mexican, Central and South American immigrant high school students growing up in major metropolitan areas of the United States, Portes and Rumbaut (2001) found that a majority of youth in their sample reported feeling discriminated at school and in other settings. The major

45

Motivation

sources of this perceived discrimination were white classmates, teachers, and neighbors. Such experiences were associated with greater feelings of depression among the youth. In a sample of Mexican-American high school students in California, perceived discrimination in school was found to have a strong, negative multivariate relation to school belonging (Roeser, 2004b).

Wong et al. (2003) also found that a strong, positive African-American social identity helped to buffer these negative effects. These results suggest a possible buffering effect of ethnic identity on the potential debilitating effects of perceived discrimination, perhaps because a strong connection to one’s ethnic group provides a context of shared meaning making around issues of discrimination that assist group members in defusing its potential negative impact on the self and therefore, on motivation to succeed (Szalacha et al. 2003).

It is also critical in this discussion to consider the quality of the educational institutions that serve many of these youth. Thirty-seven percent of African- American youth and 32 percent of Hispanic youth, compared to 5 percent of European-American and 22 percent of Asian youth are enrolled in the 47 largest city school districts in this country; in addition, African- American and Latina youth attend some of the poorest school districts in this country. Twenty-eight percent of the youth enrolled in city schools live in poverty and 55 percent are eligible for free or reduced cost lunch, suggesting that class may be as important (or more important) as race in the differences that emerge. Teachers in these schools report feeling less safe than teachers in other school districts, drop out rates are highest, and achievement levels at all grades are the lowest (Council of the Great City Schools, 1992). Finally, schools that serve these populations are less likely than schools serving more advantaged populations to offer either high quality remedial services or advanced courses and courses that facilitate the acquisition of higher order thinking skills and active learning strategies. Even children who are extremely motivated may find it difficult to perform well under these educational circumstances. These facts highlight the importance of focusing on the conjoint influences that poverty, discrimination, and debilitating work conditions for (often under qualified) teachers can have on the educational motivation, achievement, and attainments of African- and Latin-American youth.

School Level Characteristics and Student Motivation General Social Climate

Researchers suggest that variations at the school level in the climate and general expectations regarding student potential affect the development of both teachers and students in very fundamental ways (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Bryk, Lee, & Holland, 1993; Darling-Hammond, 1997; Lee & Smith, 2001; Mac Iver, Reuman, & Main, 1995; NRC, 2004). For example, Bryk et al. (1993) pointed out how the culture within Catholic schools is fundamentally different from the culture within most public schools in ways that positively affect academic motivation and achievement. This culture (school climate) values academics, has high expectations that all children can learn, and affirms the belief that the business of school is learning. Similarly, Lee and Smith (2001) showed that between-school differences in teachers’ sense of their own personal efficacy as well as their confidence in the general ability of the teachers at their school to teach all students accounted, in part, for between-school differences in adolescents’ high school performance and motivation. Finally, Maehr, Midgley and their colleagues have argued that a school-level emphasis on different achievement goals creates a school psychological environment that affects students’ academic beliefs, affect, and behavior (e.g., Maehr & Midgley, 1996; Midgley; 2002). For example, because schools’ use of public honor rolls and assemblies for the highest achieving students, class rankings on report cards, and differential curricular offerings for students of various ability levels make relative ability, competition, and social comparison salient, these practices can create a school-level ability rather than mastery/task focus. In contrast, schools can promote a school-level focus on discovery, effort and improvement, and academic mastery by focusing school-wide recognition efforts on academic effort and improvement as well as on a wide range of competencies that include as many students as possible and by implementing practices that emphasize learning and task mastery such as block scheduling, interdisciplinary curricular teams, and cooperative learning (see also Fiqueira-McDonough, 1986; Finn, 1989; Roeser et al., 1998).Academic Tracks / Curricular Differentiation

Curricular tracking (e.g., college track course sequences versus general or vocational education sequences) is another important school-level contextual feature that is quite common in secondary schools (Oakes, Gamoran, & Page, 1992). Differentiated curricular tracking influences adolescents’ school experiences in two important ways: First, tracking determines the quality and kinds of opportunities to learn each student receives (Oakes et al., 1992); second, it determines exposure to different peers and thus, to a certain degree, the nature of social relationships that youth form in school (Fuligni, Eccles, & Barber, 1995).

Despite years of research on the impact of tracking practices, few strong and definitive answers have emerged. The results vary depending on the outcome assessed, the group studied, the length of the study, the control groups used for comparison, and the specific nature of the context in which these practices are manifest.

46

Motivation

The situation is complicated by the fact that conflicting hypotheses about the likely direction and the magnitude of the effect emerge depending on the theoretical lens one uses to evaluate the practice. The best justification for these practices derives from a person-environment fit perspective. Students are more motivated to learn if the material can be adapted to their current competence level. There is some evidence consistent with this perspective for children placed in high ability classrooms, high within-class ability groups, and college tracks (Fuligni, Eccles, & Barber, 1995; Kulik & Kulik, 1987; Pallas et al., 1994). The results for adolescents placed in low ability and non-college tracks do not confirm this hypothesis. By and large, when long-term effects are found for this group of students, they are negative primarily because these adolescents are typically provided with inferior educational experience and support (Dreeban & Barr, 1988; Oakes et al., 1992; Pallas et al., 1994). Low track placement is related to poor attitudes towards school, feelings of incompetence, and problem behaviors both within school (non-attendance, crime, misconduct) and in the broader community (drug use, arrests) as well as to educational attainments (Oakes et al., 1992).

Yet another way to think about the impact of ability grouping on development is in terms of its impact on peer groups: Between-classroom ability grouping and curricular differentiation promotes continuity of contact among adolescents with similar levels of achievement and engagement with school. For those doing poorly in school, such practices can structure and promote friendships among students who are similarly alienated from school and are more likely to engage in risky or delinquent behaviors (Dryfoos, 1990). The “collecting” of adolescents with poor achievement or adjustment histories also places additional burdens on teachers who teach these classes (Oakes et al., 1992).

Another important and controversial aspect of curriculum tracking involves how students get placed in different classes and how difficult it is for students to move between class levels as their academic needs and competencies change once initial placements have been made. These issues are important both early in a child’s school career (e.g., Pallas et al., 1994) and later in adolescence when course placement is linked directly to the kinds of educational options that are available to the student after high school. Minority youth, particularly African American and Hispanic boys, are more likely to be assigned to low ability classes and non-college bound curricular tracks than other groups; furthermore, many of these youth were sufficiently competent to be placed in higher ability level classes (Dornbusch, 1994; Oakes et al., 1992). Extracurricular Activities

Schools differ in the extent to which they provide a variety of extracurricular activities for their students. Research on extracurricular activities has documented a positive link between adolescents’ extracurricular activities and high school GPA, strong school engagement, and high educational aspirations (see Eccles & Barber, 1999; Holland & Andre, 1987). This work has also documented the protective value of extracurricular activity participation in reducing drop out rates as well as involvement in delinquent and other risky behaviors (e.g., Mahoney & Cairns, 1997; McNeal, 1995). Participation in sports, in particular, has been linked to lower likelihood of school dropout and higher rates of college attendance (Deeter, 1990; Eccles & Barber, 1999; McNeal, 1995), especially among low achieving and blue-collar male athletes (Holland & Andre, 1987). These effects likely reflect the impact of extracurricular activities on students’ sense of belonging in the school, as well as on the increased likelihood of participation leading to good relationships with particular teachers.

School Transitions and Motivational DevelopmentWe reviewed earlier normative developmental work showing that many aspects of children’s motivation

decline as they go through school. These declines are most marked as children make major school transitions (e.g. from elementary school into middle or junior high school and then again into high school). In this section, we briefly review the research focused on explaining these developmental declines.Transition Into and Through Elementary School

Entrance into kindergarten and then the transition from kindergarten to first grade introduces several systematic changes in children’s social worlds (see Pianta, Rimm-Kaufman, & Cox, 1999). First, classes are age stratified, making within-age ability social comparison much easier. Second, formal evaluations of competence by “experts” begin. Third, formal ability grouping begins usually with reading group assignment. Fourth, peers have the opportunity to play a much more constant and salient role in children’ lives. Each of these changes should impact children's motivational development (Pianta et al, 1999). Unfortunately, very little longitudinal research has focused on this transition. We do know that many of the gains made in high quality pre-school programs for children living in poverty can be lost as the children move into elementary school, although there are notable exceptions (Ramey & Ramey, 1999). In addition, we know that early school transitions are changing and will continue to change during this decade (Pianta & Cox, 1999). These transitions are happening earlier as more and more students begin school at earlier ages. In addition, the population of children is getting increasingly diverse and many public schools (particularly in urban and rural settings) now serve large groups of children living in poverty. The impact of these kinds of changes on students’ motivation needs to be studied.

47

Motivation

Instead, most of the research on the early elementary school years has focused on individual differences in the link between children’s early school experiences and their subsequent development. This research suggests significant long-term consequences of children’s experiences in the early school years, particularly experiences associated with ability grouping and within-class differential teacher treatment. For example, teachers use a variety of information to assign first graders to reading groups including temperamental characteristics like interest and persistence, race, gender, and social class (e.g., Alexander, Dauber & Entwisle, 1993; Brophy & Good, 1974). Alexander et al. (1993) demonstrated that differences in first grade reading group placement and teacher-student interactions predict subsequent motivation and achievement even after controlling for initial differences in reading competence. Furthermore, these effects are mediated by both differential instruction and the amplifying impact of ability group placement on parents’ and teachers’ views of the children’s abilities, talents, and motivation (Pallas et al. 1994).

These findings are important because they point to early school years as critical for subsequent school achievement. They are also important because they bring attention to the potential role of elementary schools in reproducing the economic stratification that exists in our society. Elementary schools are located within the communities they serve; thus there can be great variations in the populations different schools serve, as well as in the curriculum offered, and the resources available, at different schools. Interestingly, in analyses of data from their Baltimore School Study, Entwisle and Alexander (1999) found that low SES and high SES children progressed equally during the school year when school was in session. Differences in performance emerged over the summer when school is not in session with the low SES children losing more ground in what they are able to do over than summer than the higher SES children.

We reviewed earlier the research showing that many children’s motivation declines during the elementary school years. Researchers doing this work suggest that these changes reflect a combination of cognitive changes in the children and contextual changes in the classrooms (although more longitudinal studies are needed to assess these explanations fully). More specifically, children’s ability to use social comparison information increases over the elementary school years making it easier for them to compare their relative ability with that other children (Ruble, 1983). This change should lead some children to lower their confidence in their own ability to master the school material (Eccles et al., 1984). Similarly, it is possible that teachers increase their use of social comparative information and their emphasis on ability as entity-based rather than incremental. The increasing emphases as children go through school on evaluation and performance outcomes also likely play a strong role (Maehr & Midgley, 1996). More work is needed to test these hypotheses.

Transitions from Elementary School into Secondary SchoolAs was true in 1998, most of the research on secondary school transition effects has focused on the

transition to middle or junior high school. But more work is coming out on the transition into high school. Because the principles underlying the declines in students’ motivation are quite similar across these two transitions, we focus on these principles rather than the specific grade levels at which the transitions are made.

As noted earlier, there are substantial declines in academic motivation and achievement across the upper elementary and secondary school years, including changes in grades, interest in school, perceptions of competence in different areas, and increases in performance goals at the expense of mastery goals (see Eccles et al., 1998, Schneider & Coleman, 1993 for reviews). These changes are particularly large for students who are doing poorly (either emotionally or academically) in school (Lord et al., 1984). These changes are also likely to be especially problematic for children from low SES communities and families, children who find the school curriculum particularly meaningless and children who find the school climate particularly unsupportive and uncomfortable.

In explaining such changes, Eccles et al. (1998) discussed how the multiple changes that occur during this time period (puberty, school transitions, changing relations with parents, increasing cognitive maturity, increasing concern with identity, increasing sexuality and heterosociality, and increasing focus on peer relationships) likely have an impact on students’ motivation and achievement. They also discussed how differences in school environments between elementary and secondary schools could contribute to these changes (see also Eccles & Roeser, 2005; NRC, 2004; Wigfield & Eccles, 2002b; Wigfield & Tonks, 2002). Traditional secondary schools differ structurally in important ways from elementary schools. Most secondary schools are substantially larger than elementary schools. As a result, students' friendship networks often are disrupted as they attend classes with students from several different schools. In addition, students are likely to feel more anonymous and alienated because of the large size of many secondary schools. Finally, the opportunity to participate in and play leadership roles in school activities often decline over these school transitions due to the limited number of slots in such niches and the increasing size of the student body. These kinds of changes should affect the students’ sense of belonging as well as their sense of social competence.

The nature of instruction also changes: Secondary school instruction is organized and taught departmentally - making it likely that secondary school teachers teach several different groups of students each

48

Motivation

day and are unlikely to teach any particular students for more than one year. This departmental structure can create a number of difficulties for students. First, the curriculum often is not integrated across different subjects. Second, students typically have several teachers each day with little opportunity to interact with any one teacher on any dimension except the academic content of what is being taught and disciplinary issues. As a result, the likelihood of students and teachers forming close, supportive bonds is much less in secondary than in elementary schools. This result can be problematic for a number of reasons. First, it should reduce the likelihood that a teacher will be able to identify whether a particular student is having problems and make appropriate referral recommendation. Second, it should reduce the likelihood that a teacher will have time to provide adequate instructional supports for students who need extra academic help. Both of these changes are likely to undermine low performing students’ sense of competence and sense of belonging.

Finally, grading systems are more likely to be based on social comparative performance, ability level tracking via curricular tracking is common, and teachers are more likely to hold entity, rather than incremental, views of ability differences (Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Wigfield, Eccles, & Pintrich, 1996). These characteristics, in turn, are likely to lead to an increase in performance rather than mastery goal focus in the classroom and the school building. As noted earlier, these changes are likely to undermine low performing students’ sense of competence. Because the nature of these changes is so dramatic at the shift from elementary school to middle or junior high school, it is not surprising that there is a major decline in motivation for many students as they make this transition.

Recent work on the transition to high school suggests that similar changes occur at this transition (Lee & Smith, 2001; Mac Iver et al., 1995; NRC, 2004; Wehlage, et al., 1989). For example, high schools are typically even larger and more bureaucratic than middle and junior high schools. Lee and Smith (2001) provide numerous examples of the sense of community among teachers and students is undermined by the size and bureaucratic structure of most high schools. There is little opportunity for students and teachers to get to know each other and, likely as a consequence, there is distrust between them and little attachment to a common set of goals and values. There is also little opportunity for the students to form mentor-like relationships with the teachers and there is little effort to make instruction meaningful to the students. Such environments are likely to undermine the motivation and involvement of many students, especially those not doing particularly well academically, and those who are alienated from the values of the adults in the high school. Furthermore, research based upon both teacher and student reports shows that schools become more and more socially comparative and competitive in orientation as students progression from elementary to middle to high school (Roeser et al., 2002). The coincidence of declining social support and increased social comparison and competition at both the middle and high school levels likely contribute to some adolescents’ decisions, those who are already on the margins of the school community, to withdraw from school prior to graduation. For example, Fine (1991) documented how these kinds of secondary school practices cumulate to drive out students who are not doing very well academically. In a large study of students in the Chicago public schools, Roderick and Cameron (1999) showed how failure rates increase dramatically after students made the transition to high school (this was particularly true for minority students), and how early failures in high school strongly predict later poor performance. Other studies of ethnic minority youth document the negative impact of alienating and non-inclusive high school practices on school engagement and achievement of students of color (e.g., Darling- Hammond, 1997; Deyhle & Le Compte, 1999; Ferguson, 1998; Jackson & Davis, 2000; Suarrez-Orozco & Suarrez-Orozco, 1995; Taylor et al., 1994; Valencia, 1991). More work is needed on this transition point.School Experiences as Related to Ethnic and Cultural Identity Formation

As noted above, typical secondary school practices may be particularly problematic for adolescents from cultural minority groups. Adolescence is the prime developmental period for identity development. A great deal of work in the last 10-15 years has focused on the potential disconnect between what goes on in typical American secondary schools and the goals, values, and experiences of cultural minority groups in the USA (see Meece & Kurtes-Costes, 2001; Okagaki, 2001).

Much of this work has focused on how individuals from different ethnic and cultural groups navigate the sometimes disparate social worlds of home and school by “managing” the relation of their in-school identity with broader aspects of their social identities (e.g., Roeser et al, 2003). Perhaps the most well-known view of how members of different ethnic minorities manage or rather fail to manage aspects of their ethnic/racial and student identities is that of John Ogbu and Signthia Fordham, some of whose work was reviewed above. These authors highlighted the identity conflicts that members of particular ethnic minority groups may experience between ethnic loyalty and school identification. Another view of how members of traditionally disenfranchised groups address these kinds of potential identity conflicts comes from scholars such as Oetting and Beauvais (1991) and Lafromboise, Coleman, & Gerton (1993). These authors have pointed to the strategies that members of non-majority groups use to develop bicultural identities – those that integrate a sense of ethnic pride and engagement

49

Motivation

with activities of the majority culture in a complementary rather than conflictual way (Phinney & Devich-Navarro, 1997). This work underscores how some members of stigmatized ethnic minority groups integrate their sense of ethnic pride and their pursuit of success in school, with the presumption that success in school is defined as a “majority” activity. In this instance, neither ethnic loyalty nor commitment to education “gives way” to the other. Evidence for the existence of such subgroups among Mexican-American youth, for example, has been found at the middle school (Roeser et al., 2003) and high school level (Matute-Bianchi, 1986).

The emerging literature on social identities and academic identity among ethnic minorities raises several possibilities concerning what Roeser and his colleagues (2003) have called ”school identity configurations.” Young people from various non-majority ethnic groups may integrate their sense of ethnic pride and school commitment in the ways described by those who study biculturalism. Others may manage different facets of identities in and outside of school by code switching in the ways that scholars such as Fordham (1988) have proposed; whereas some individuals who have difficulty managing different dimensions of identity may show oppositional patterns of disengagement as described by Fordham & Ogbu 1986). It is important to note, however, that such conflicts are not confined to ethnic minority youth, but rather are a broader phenomena characteristic of many adolescents (Arroyo & Zigler, 1995; Roeser et al., 2003). Middle School Reform Efforts and Student Motivation

Based in part on the research just reviewed, proposals by middle schools experts, and the Turning Points report written by the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, middle school reform has become very popular (see Carnegie Foundation, 1989; Jackson & Davis, 2000; Midgley & Edelin, 1998). There is growing consensus about what kinds of changes should be made in middle grades schools (Lipsitz, Mizell, Jackson, & Austin, 1997). One structural change adopted in many school districts has been to move the transition to middle school from after to before sixth grade. However, this change on its own accomplishes little and often simply moves the transitional problems one year earlier in the students’ development. What is more important is changing school organization and instructional practices in systematic ways (Mac Iver & Epstein, 1993). Both the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development and the National Middle Schools Association have made recommendations for how middle schools should be changed; a summary of their recommendations is presented in Table 1. As can be seen in the table, there is much overlap between these recommendations. The broadest goal of these recommendations is to provide developmentally appropriate education for early adolescents.

There are a number of important ways in which these recommendations have been implemented in different middle schools. One is replacing departmentalized curriculum structures with teams of teachers working with the same group of students. This practice allows groups of teachers to spend more time with the same group of adolescents, thus getting to know them better. It also allows for greater integration across the curriculum. Teachers serving as advisors and counselors has become more prevalent, so that adolescents can develop closer relationships with their teachers. To create smaller learning communities in often-large middle schools, "schools within schools" have been created, in part through the teaming approach just discussed. This is particularly likely to occur for the youngest group in a middle school, be they fifth graders, sixth graders, or seventh graders. Cooperative learning practices are used more frequently, in part to reduce the use of ability grouping or tracking.

Lipsitz and her colleagues (1997) discussed middle school reform efforts across the country. They focused in particular on three sets of middle schools in Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana in which reform efforts in line with the recommendations included in Table 1 have been undertaken in meaningful ways. Felner, Kasak, Mulhall, and Flowers (1997) reported systematic evaluations of the schools in the Illinois network. They conducted longitudinal studies in school implementing fully the recommendations from the Carnegie Council, comparing them with schools implementing the recommendations to a degree and not at all. The comparison schools are matched carefully on demographic and other characteristics. Felner et al. obtained measures of students' achievement, school attitudes, and behavior problems. Preliminary analyses indicate that schools in which the implementation has been fullest have higher achieving students. Students in these schools report higher self-esteem and fewer worries about bad things happening to them in schools; the teachers report fewer behavior problems. These results provide encouraging support for the efficacy of the reform efforts. One crucial point made by Felner et al. is that comprehensive reform is what needed. Schools in which one or two of the recommendations have been implemented, or schools in which the implementation of several recommendations has proceeded slowly, have not been as successful. Unfortunately, as noted above many schools are just beginning to implement change, or are doing so selectively.

There is not yet a great deal of information about how reform efforts have affected students' motivation. Felner and his colleagues measured self-esteem, but not the different aspects of motivation we have discussed in this chapter. Mac Iver and his colleagues began a middle school reform effort (Mac Iver & Plank, 1997, Mac Iver et al., 2002) focused on schools serving early adolescents who living in high poverty areas. The program involves the implementation of many of the recommendations discussed in this section: detracking the schools, using

50

Motivation

cooperative learning extensively, team teaching, offering a challenging core curriculum (including algebra) to all students, and providing advising services. Preliminary results for both achievement and motivation outcomes are encouraging.

As mentioned above, Maehr and Midgley (1996) used goal theory to work with teachers and administrators to change the culture organization and climate of a middle school and an elementary school in a city in Michigan. The school - university team worked extensively to restructure the school towards a focus on mastery goal; they spent three years in each school. At the middle school they focused on creating teams of teachers, "schools within the school", lessening the use of ability grouping practices, and changing the student recognition patterns so that not just the “honor roll” students were recognized. They also worked to loosen the rigid bell schedule so that longer class periods were sometimes possible. Changing the school culture in the middle school was very difficulty due to some teachers’ (especially the math teachers) resistance to change, particularly with respect to doing away with grouping, difficulties in adjusting the rigid middle school bell schedule to accommodate teaming and flexible class scheduling, and parents’ objections that their high-achieving students did not receive enough recognition. However, despite these difficulties, the changes had positive effects on students' motivation (E. Anderman, Maehr, & Midgley, 1999).

In contrast, much less work has been done on high school reform effort and the results of this work are less consistent (NRC, 2004). Reform efforts have followed similar principles aimed at creating school that better meet the competence, belonging, autonomy and mattering needs of the adolescent students. As is true for the middle school reform efforts, when these principles are well implemented, improvements in students’ motivation, school engagement and academic performance are obtained (NRC, 2004). But successfully implementing these kinds of changes has proven to be very difficult at the high school level.

THE SOCIALIZATION OF MOTIVATION: ROLES OF PEERSHow might peers affect motivation and achievement? We focus on four possible links: the role of social

comparison in self-evaluation, the relation between social competence and school motivation/achievement, peers as co-learners, and the reinforcing and socializing mechanism within peer groups.Social Comparison and Self-evaluation

Given the importance of ability self concepts in all motivational theories, understanding the role that peers play in self-evaluation is critical to our understanding of motivation. Researchers interested in social comparison have addressed this issue, focusing specifically on age-related increases in children’s use of social comparison information in forming perceptions of one’s own abilities In general, older children and adolescents use social comparison more often and more accurately in forming their own self evaluations than younger children (e.g., Ruble, 1994). Ruble (1994) also suggested that the use of social comparison may increase during transitional phases in one's life like the school transitions discussed earlier. Together these transitional processes and the age related increases in the use of social comparison make adolescents exceptionally vulnerable to the motivational consequences of such comparisons (Eccles et al., 1993; Fuligni & Eccles, 1995). Cultural background (either in terms of gender or ethnic group) also likely influences the extent and the type of social comparison. Finally, as noted earlier, social comparison processes are very sensitive to social context, particularly those linked to the types of classroom experiences linked to performance versus mastery orientation. Social Competence and Motivation

Many studies document the positive association of good social skills with both better performance and higher motivation in school (e.g., Asher & Coie, 1990; Juvonen & Wentzel 1996; Wentzel, 1998). Further, social competence and social support can help ease school transitions (Birch & Ladd, 1996; Lord et al., 1994; Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 1998; Rubin, Coplan, Chen, Buskirk, & Wojslawowicz, in press). The exact mechanisms underlying these associations are just beginning to be understood. Some suggest that the association represents the influence of some underlying form of inherited intelligence or temperament/motivational orientation that facilitates the acquisition both social and academic competence (e.g., Martin, Drew, Gaddis, & Moseley, 1988; Wentzel, 1991b). Others focus on the link between social support and mental health: Children should be able to focus more of their attention on learning if they feel socially supported and well-liked by both their peers and the adults in their learning context and if they feel that they belong (Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Goodenow, 1993; Ladd, 1990; Lynch & Cicchetti, 1997; Roeser et al., 1996; Sage & Kindermann, 1999). Well-liked children may also place more value on learning in such a context. Peers as Co-Learners

The extensive work on the advantages of cooperative learning provides another link between peers and motivation. This work suggests that doing learning activities in a social context is usually more fun and, thus, more intrinsically interesting (Slavin, 1995; Stevens & Slavin, 1995). Peers also help each other understand and learn the material through group discussion, sharing of resources, modeling academic skills, and interpreting and clarifying the tasks for each other (Schunk, 1987). Each of these characteristics should influence achievement

51

Motivation

through its impact on children’s expectations for success, their valuing of the activity, and their focus on learning rather than performance goals. Peer Group Influences

Much of the classic work on peer influences on school achievement focused on the negative effects of peer groups on children’s commitment to doing well in school (see Brown, 1990, 2004 for review). More recently, researchers have investigated the specific mechanisms by which peer groups can have either a positive or negative affect on motivation across various activity settings. These researchers document that children cluster together in peer groups sharing similar motivational orientations and activity preferences and that such clustering reinforces and strengthens their existing motivational orientation and activity preferences over time (e.g., Guay, Boivin, & Hodges, 1999; Kindermann, McCollam, & Gibson, 1996; Ryan, 2001). Altermatt and Pomerantz (2003) found in a study of early adolescents that best friends’ report card grades were similar, as were their beliefs about their competence in different subject areas. In addition, friends had significant (but modest) influences on each others’ grades and motivational beliefs across the two school years studied. Whether such effects are positive or negative depends on the nature of the peer groups’ motivational orientation. High achieving children who seek out other high achievers as friends develop even more positive academic motivation over time. In contrast, low achievers who join a low achieving peer group should become even less motivated to do school work and more motivated to engage in other activities more consistent with their peer group’s values (see Brown, 2004; Kindermann, 1993; Kindermann et al., 1996).

The role of peer group influence varies across ages, with peers in an especially important role vis-à-vis motivation and achievement during adolescence for two reasons: Adolescents are more aware of, and concerned about, peer group acceptance and spend much more unsupervised time with peers groups than younger children (Brown, 2004). Consequently, adolescents should be especially vulnerable to peer group influences on their goals, interests, and values. In addition, however, the potential negative impact of peers may be especially problematic for some adolescents’ academic achievement motivation. For example, early adolescents rate social activities as very important and more enjoyable than most other activities, particularly academic activities (Eccles et al., 1989; Wigfield et al., 1991). Consequently, to the extent that one’s peer group devalues academic achievement relative to other goals and activities, the adolescents should shift their focus away from academic pursuits in order to maintain peer acceptance. Finally, given other changes associated with adolescent development, it is quite likely that a substantial number of adolescents will be recruited into such a peer group. Some of these adolescents will be recruited into gangs – a particularly problematic peer group in terms of antisocial behavior and low school achievement (Battin-Pearson, Thornberry, Hawkins, & Krohn, 1998; NRC, 2004).

Another growing concern about the impact of peers on children’s school motivation focuses bullying and peer violence at school. Fighting increases during the middle school years, and more students are bullied in middle school than in either elementary or high school (Juvonen, Le, Kaganoff, Augustine, & Constant, 2004). Being bullied is associated with many negative developmental outcomes, including loneliness, depression, and social anxiety, as well as lower school performance (Juvonen & Graham, 2001; Juvonen, Nishina, & Graham, 2001). Increasing percentages of both middle and high school students report concerns about their safety in school, which of course distracts them from their school learning and can lead to motivational disengagement from school (Brand et al., 2003). Creating safer school environments where bullying and other forms of violence are less likely clearly is an important priority in terms of maximizing all students’ school engagement and motivation.

CONCLUSIONSResearch on the development of children’s motivation remains a vibrant field. Many of the

same theories that were reviewed in the previous chapter in this Handbook continue to be influential, although the influence of some theories has waned, and others grown. Research in these different theoretical traditions is giving us a more complete understanding of the development of motivation across the childhood and adolescent years.

We believe the research since the last edition of this Handbook was published has made especially important advances in the following areas. First, we have learned much about contextual influences on motivation and how children’s motivation varies across different contexts, such as in different kinds of families, and different school contexts. We have long known that motivation is not solely a characteristic of the individual, but the new emphasis on “motivation in context” has brought that point out much more clearly (Hickey & McCaslin, 2001; Urdan, 1999). Further, as we understand better contextual influences in schools and other settings that influence motivation, we are making progress in developing ways to foster the development of children’s motivation in these settings (e.g., Guthrie et al., 2004; Maehr & Midgley, 1996). Through this intervention work the often-noted declines in children’s motivation can be reversed or avoided.

52

Motivation

Second, we have learned much about the development of motivation in diverse groups of children in this country and others. Although much remains to be done in this area, motivation researchers increasingly include diverse samples in their work, revising their theories to incorporate culture more clearly in their models, and testing their theories in diverse groups (see the McInerney & Van Etten, 2004 volume for good examples of this work). Following Graham’s (1994) call, much of this work is looking at variation within different cultural groups, rather than comparisons across groups. This is an important trend because we need to know much more about variation in motivation within different groups, rather than how one group’s mean level of motivation compares to the mean level of another group.

Third, progress has been made in understanding the relations between motivation, cognition, and self-regulation, which provides us with a more complete picture of children’s functioning in different kinds of achievement settings (e.g., Boekaerts et al., 2000; Pintrich, 2003; Wolters, 2003; Zimmerman, 2000). Yet as Pintrich notes, much work remains to be done on this topic, as there is (potentially) great complexity in these relations. Along with the relations of motivation, cognition, and self-regulation, there has been increasing interest in research on relations between motivation and affect (e.g., Pekrun 2000; Pintrich, 2003), and we think this work will grow over the next few years. Understanding relations among the different motivational beliefs, values, and goals; cognitive processes; and the regulation of behavior and affect is a major priority for the next several years.

Another important advance over the last eight years is the growing concern for how motivation constructs are defined, and attempts to specify the similarities and differences in related constructs (for instance, self-efficacy and expectations for success). A particular example of this is Murphy and Alexander’s (2000) article in their special issue of Contemporary Educational Psychology devoted to motivational terminology, but others have contributed to these efforts as well (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Pintrich, 2003; Schunk & Pajares, 2002; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). As motivation terminology becomes increasingly clearly defined, theoretical clarity, and the similarities and differences across different theories, also should be better understood. Indeed, we believe it may be time for greater integration across some of the major theories of motivation, rather than a continued proliferation of theories focused primarily on one or two constructs.

Finally, in a chapter for the Handbook of Child Psychology we think it important to note that there needs to be more truly developmental work on the nature and development of motivation. Many researchers have focused on individual differences and group differences in motivation, but not always on motivational development. One important developmental issue that needs more attention is how children at different ages understand their own motivational beliefs, values, and goals. The only such belief that has been investigated systematically in this way is children’s conceptions of the nature of ability. This work has shown clearly that children have rather different conceptions of ability at different ages, which has many implications for our understanding how motivation operates at different ages, as well as for how we measure children’s sense of ability. Such work has not been done with the other major belief, value, and goal constructs discussed in this chapter, and this work should be undertaken.

There have been important methodological advances that allow us to study the development of motivation in increasingly sophisticated ways. Studies we reviewed earlier by Jacobs et al. (2002), Skinner et al. (1998) and Watt (2004) are good examples, and there are other examples in the literature. These researchers (and others) are using newly developed statistical methods to analyze short and long-term change in the belief, value, and goal constructs that impact motivation. These researchers also are examining what explains different patterns of change in children’s beliefs, values, and goals. Continuing such work will lead to an even better understanding of the development of motivation. Coupling such work with investigations into the processes involved in motivation’s relations to outcomes also will advance the field.

53

Motivation

ReferencesAinley, M., Hidi, S. & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest, learning, and the psychological process that

mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 545-561.Alexander, K. L., Dauber, S. L., Entwisle, D. R. (1993). First-grade classroom behavior: Its short- and long-term

consequences for school performance. Child Development, 64, 801-803.Alexander, K. L., & Entwisle, D. (1988). Achievement in the first two years of school: Patterns and processes.

Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 53 (2, Serial No. 218).Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Bedinger, S. D. (1994). When expectations work: Race and

socioeconomic differences in school performance." Social Psychology Quarterly 57, 283-99.Alexander, K. L. & Entwisle, D. R. (1996). Schools and children at risk. In A. Booth & J. Dunn (Eds.),

Family-school links: How do they affect educational outcomes? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Alexander, P. A., Kulikowich, J. M., & Jetton, T. L. (1994). The role of subject-matter knowledge and interest in the processing of linear and nonlinear texts. Review of Educational Research, 64, 201-252.

Altermatt, E. R., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2003). The development of competence-related and motivational beliefs: An investigation of similarity and influence among friends. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95,111-123.

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

Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-267.

Anderman, E. M., Austin, C. C., & Johnson, D. M. (2002). The development of goal orientation. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 197-220). San Diego: Academic Press.

Anderman, E. M., Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1999). Declining motivation after the transition to middle school: Schools can make a difference. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 32, 131-147.

Anderman, L. H., & Anderman, E. M. (1999). Social predictors of changes in students’ achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 21-37.

Andrews, G. R., & Debus, R. L. (1978). Persistence and the causal perception of failure: Modifying cognitive attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 154-166.

Arbreton, A. J. A., & J. S. Eccles (1994, April). Mother's perceptions of their children during the transition from kindergarten to formal schooling: The effect of teacher evaluations on parents' expectations for their early elementary school children. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association Conference, New Orleans, LA.

Arbreton, A. J., Eccles, J. S. & Harold, R. (1994, April). Parents' perceptions of their children's competence: The role of parents attributions. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence, San Diego.

Aronson, J. (2002). Stereotype threat: contending and coping with unnerving expectations. In J. Aronson (Ed.). Improving academic achievement: Impact of psychological factors on education (pp. 279-301). San Diego: Academic Press.

Aronson, J. Fried, C.B., & Good, C. (2001). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,

Aronson, J., & Steele, C. M. (in press). Stereotypes and the fragility of academic competence, motivation, and self-concept. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation. New York: Guilford.

Arroyo, C, S-Zigler, E. (1995). Racial identity, academic achievement, and the psychological well being of economically disadvantaged adolescents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 903-914.

Asher, S. R., & Coie, J. D. (Eds.) (1990). Peer rejection in childhood. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ashton, P. (1985). Motivation and the teacher's sense of efficacy. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education; Vol. 2. The classroom milieu (pp. 141-171). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk taking behavior. Psychological Review, 64, 359-372.Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.

54

Motivation

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp, 1-45). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.Barber, B., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). A developmental view of the impact of divorce and single parenting on

children and adolescents. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 108-126.Baron, R. M., Tom. D. Y. H., & Cooper, H. M. (1985). Social class, race, and teacher expectations. In J. B. Dusek

(Ed.), Teacher expectancies (pp. 251-269). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Battin-Pearson, S. R., Thornberry, T. P., Hawkins, J. D., & Krohn, M. D. (1998). Gang membership, delinquent

peers, and delinquent behavior. (Rep. No. 1-11). Washington DC: U. S. Department of Justice.Battle, A., & Wigfield, A. (2003). College women’s value orientations toward family, career, and

graduate school. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 56-75.Baumeister, R.F. & Leary, M.R. (1995). The need to belong. Desire for interpersonal attachments as a

fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529. Baumert, J. (1995, April). Gender, science interest, teaching strategies and socially shared beliefs about gender

roles in 7th graders - a multi-level analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1996). Interpersonal relationships in the school environment and children's early school adjustment: The role of teachers and peers. In J. Juvonen & K. R. Wentzel (Eds.), Social motivation: Understanding children's school adjustment (pp. 199-225). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Blumenfeld, P. C. (1992). Classroom learning and motivation: Clarifying and expanding goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 272-281.

Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego: Academic Press.Bong, M. (2001). Role of self-efficacy and task value in predicting college students’ course enrollments and

intentions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 553-570.Bong, M., & Clark, R. E. (1999). Comparison between self-concept and self-efficacy in academic motivation

research. Educational Psychologist, 34, 139-154.Borkowski, J. G., Weyhing, R. S., & Carr, M. (1988). Effects of attributional retraining on strategy-based reading

comprehension in learning-disabled student. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 46-53.Brand, S., Felner, R., Shim, M., Seitsinger, A., & Dumas, T. (2003). Middle school improvement and reform:

Development and validation of a school-level assessment of climate, cultural pluralism, and school safety. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 570-588.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of environmental processes. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & R. M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 993-1028). New York: Wiley.

Brooks-Gunn, J, Guo, G., & Furstenberg, F. F. Jr. (1993). Who drops out of and who continues beyond high school? A 20-year follow up of black urban youth. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 3, 271-294.

Brophy, J. E. (1985). Teacher-student interaction. In J. B. Dusek (Ed.), Teacher expectations (pp. 303-328). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Brophy, J. E. (2004). Motivating students to learn (2nd Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Brophy, J. E. (1999). Toward a model of the value aspects of motivation in education: Developing appreciation for particular learning domains and activities. Educational Psychologist, 34, 75-85.

Brophy, J. E., & Good. T. L. (1974). Teacher-student relationships: Causes and consequences. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Brown, B. B. (1990). Peer groups and peer culture. In S. S. Feldman and G. R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 171-196). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Brown, B. B. (2004). Adolescents’ relationships with peers. In R. M. Lerner & L. D. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (2nd Ed., pp. 363-394). New York: Wiley.

Bryk, A. S., Lee, V. E., Holland, P.B. (1993). Catholic schools and the common good. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bullock, M., & Lutkenhaus, P. (1988). The development of volitional behaviors in the toddler years. Child Development, 59, 664-674.

55

Motivation

Burhans, K. K., & Dweck, C. S. (1995). Helplessness in early childhood: The role of contingent worth. Child Development, 66, 1719-1738.

Butler, R. (1993). Effects of task- and ego-achievement goals on information seeking during task engagement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 18-31.

Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 64, 363-424.

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1989). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century. Washington, DC.

Chen, A., Darst, P. W. & Pangrazi, R. P. (2001). An examination of situational interest and its sources. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 383-400.

Chirkov, V., Ryan, R.M., Kim, Y., & Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating autonomy from individualism and independence: A Self-Determination Theory perspective on internalization of cultural orientations and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 97-110.

Clark, R. (1983). Family life and school achievement: Why poor black children succeed or fail. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Clark, R. (1993). Homework parenting practices that positively affect student achievement. In N. F. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic society (pp. 53–71). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Collins, W. A., Maccoby, E. E., Steinberg, L., Hetherington, E. M., & Bornstein, M. H. (2000). Contemporary research on parenting. The case for nature and nurture. American Psychologist, 55, 218-32.

Conger, R. D., Wallace, E., Lora, Sun, Yumei, Brody, G., McLoyd, V., Simons, R.L. and Peris, L. (2002). Economic pressure in African-American families: A replication and extension of the family stress model. Developmental Psychology, 38, 179-193.

Connell, J. P. (1985). A new multidimensional measure of children's perception of control. Child Development, 56, 1018-1041.

Connell, J. P., Halpern-Felsher, B. L., Clifford, E., Crichlow, W., & Usinger, P. (1995). Hanging in there: Behavioral, psychological, and contextual factors affecting whether African-American adolescents stay in high school. Journal of Adolescent Research, 10, 41-63.

Connell, J. P., Spencer, M. B., & Aber, J. L. (1994). Educational risk and resilience in African American Youth: Context, self, and action outcomes in school. Child Development, 65, 493-506.

Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In R. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Minnesota symposia on child psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 43-77). Hillsale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cook, T. D., Church, M. B., Ajanaku, S., Shadish, W. R., Kim, J. R., & Cohen, R. (1996). The development of occupational aspirations and expectations among inner-city boys. Child Development, 67, 3368-3385.

Cooper, H., & Dorr, N. (1995). Race comparisons on need for achievement: A meta-analytic alternative to Graham’s narrative review. Review of Educational Research, 65, 483-508.

Cordova, D. I., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 715-730.

Corno, L. (1993). The best-laid plans: Modern conceptions of volition and educational research. Educational Researcher, 22, 14-22.

Corno, L. (in press). Work habits and study styles: Volition in education. Teachers College Press.Corno, L., & Kanfer, R. (1993). The role of volition in learning and performance. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.),

Review of research in education (Vol. 29). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Corwyn, R. F. & Bradley, R. F. (2003). Family process mediators of the relation between SES and child

outcomes. Unpublished manuscript, University of Arkansas at Little Rock.

Council of the Great City Schools, (1992). National urban education goals: Baseline indicators, 1990-91. Washington, DC: Council of the Great City Schools.

Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Covington, M. V., & Dray, E. (2002). The developmental course of achievement motivation: A need-based approach. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 33-56). San Diego: Academic Press.

Crandall, V. C., Katkovsky, W., & Crandall, V. J. (1965). Children's beliefs in their own control of reinforcements in intellectual-academic achievement situations. Child Development, 36, 91-109

56

Motivation

Crystal, D. S., & Stevenson, H. W. (1991). Mothers' perceptions of children's problems with mathematics: A cross-national comparison. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 372-376.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). The flow experience and its significance for human psychology. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience (pp. 15-35). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Massimini, F. (1985). On the psychological selection of bio-cultural information. New Ideas in Psychology, 3, 15-38.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S, (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Davis-Kean, P. E. (in press). The influence of parent education and family income on child achievement: The indirect role of parental expectations and the home environment. The Journal of Family Psychology.

Davis-Kean, P. E. & Eccles, J. S. (2003). Influences and barriers to better parent-school collaborations. The LSS Review, 2 (1), 4-5.

Davis-Kean, P. E., Eccles, J. S. & Schnabel, K. U. (August, 2002). How the home environment socializes a child: The influence of SES on child outcomes. Paper presented at the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Ottawa, Canada.

Davis-Kean, P. E. & Eccles, J. S. (2003). Influences and barriers to better parent-school collaborations. The LSS Review, 2 (1), 4-5.

Davis-Kean, P. E. & Magnuson, K. A. (2004). The importance of parents’ education on child outcomes. Unpublished manuscript.

Davis-Kean, P. E., Malanchuk, O., Peck, S. C., & Eccles, J. S. (2003). Parental influence on academic outcomes: do race and SES matter? Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research on Child Development, Tampa, FL.

DeBaryshe, B. D., Patterson, G. R., & Capaldi, D. M. (1993). A performance model for academic achievement in early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 29, 795-804.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic motivation on intrinsic rewards. Psychological Bulletin, 125,627-668.

Deci, E. L. (1992). The relation of interest to the motivation of behavior: A self-determination theory perspective. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 43-70). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Deci, E. L. (1998). The relation to interest to motivation and human needs: The self-determination theory viewpoint. In. L. Hoffman, A. Krapp, K. A. Renninger, & J. Baumert (Eds.), Interest and learning (pp. 146-162). Kiel, Germany: IPN Press

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002a). Self-determination research: Reflections and future directions. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination theory research (pp. 431-441). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002b). The paradox of achievement: The harder you push, the worse it gets. In J. Aronson (Ed.), Improving academic achievement: Impact of psychological factors on education (pp. 61-87). San Diego: Academic Press.

Deci, E., L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. C., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26, 325-346.

Denny, D. R. (1980). Self-control approaches to the treatment of test anxiety. In I. G. Sarason (Ed.), Test anxiety: Theory, research, and applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Deeter, T. E. (1990). Remodeling expectancy and value in physical activity. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12, 83-91.

Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education. Boston: Riverside Press.Deyhle, D., & LeCompte, M. (1999). Cultural differences in child development: Navaho adolescents in middle

schools. In R. H. Sheets and E. R. Hollins (Eds.), Racial and ethnic identity in school practices: Aspects of human development, (pp. 123-140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dornbusch, S. M. (1994). Off the track. Presidential address at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence, San Diego, CA.

57

Motivation

Dowson, M., & McInerney, D. M. (2003). What do students say about their motivational goals? Towards a more complex and dynamic perspective on student motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 91-113.

Dreeban, R., & Barr, R. (1988). Classroom composition and the design of instruction. Sociology of Education, 61, 129-142.

Dryfoos, J. G. (1990). Adolescents at risk: Prevalence and prevention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Duncan, G. J., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Klevbanov, P. K. (1994). Economic deprivation and early childhood

development. Child Development, 65, 296-318.Dusek, J. B. (1980). The development of test anxiety in children. In I. G. Sarason (Ed.), Test anxiety: Theory, research, and applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Dweck, C. S. (1975). The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation of learned helplessness. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 674-685.Dweck, C. S. (2002). The development of ability conceptions. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development

of achievement motivation (pp. 57-88). San Diego: Academic Press.Dweck, C. S., & Elliott, E. S. (1983). Achievement motivation. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child

psychology (Vol. IV, 3rd. Ed., pp. 643-691). New York: Wiley.Dweck, C. S., & Goetz, T. E. (1978). Attributions and learned helplessness. In J. H. Harvey, W. Ickes, & R. F.

Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (Vol. 2, pp. 155-179). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological

Review, 95, 256-273.Dweck, C. S., & Lennon, C. (2001, April). Person vs. process focused parenting: Impact on achievement

motivation. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis.

Dweck, C. S., & Licht, B. G. (1980). Learned helplessness and intellectual achievement. In J. Garber & M. E. P. Seligman (Eds.), Human helplessness: Theory and applications. New York: Academic Press.

Eaton, M. J. & Dembo, M.H. (1997). Differences in the motivational beliefs of Asian American and Non-Asian students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 433-440.

Eccles, J. S. (1984). Sex differences in achievement patterns. In T. Sonderegger (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 32, pp. 97-132). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Eccles, J. S. (1987). Gender roles and women's achievement-related decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 135-172.

Eccles, J. S. (1989). Bringing young women to math and science. In M. Crawford and M. Gentry (Eds.), Gender and thought: Psychological perspectives (pp. 36-57). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Eccles, J. S., (1993). School and family effects on the ontogeny of children's interests, self-perceptions, and activity choice. In J. Jacobs (Ed.) Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1992: Developmental perspectives on motivation. (pp. 145- 208) Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press.

Eccles, J. S. (1994). Understanding women's educational and occupational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 585-609.

Eccles, J. S. (1998). Commentary: Individual differences and the development of perceived control. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development (Serial No. 254, Vol. 6, No.2-3, pp. 221-231).

Eccles, J. S. (2004). Schools, academic motivation, and stage-environment fit. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (2nd ed., pp. 125-153). New York: John Wiley and sons.

Eccles, J. S., & Barber, B. L. (1999). Student council, volunteering, basketball, or marching band: What kind of extracurricular involvement matters? Journal of Adolescent Research, 14, 10-43.

Eccles, J. S., Freedman-Doan, C., & Yoon, K. (2000). Gender-role socialization in the family: a longitudinal approach. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds), The developmental social psychology of gender. Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 333-360.

Eccles, J. S. & Harold, R. D. (1991). Gender differences in sport involvement: Applying the Eccles' expectancy-value model. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 3, 7-35.

Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1992). Gender differences in educational and occupational patterns among the gifted. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & D. L. Amronson (Eds.), Talent Development: Proceedings form the 1991 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development. Unionville, NY: Trillium Press (pp. 3-29).

Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1993). Parent-school involvement during the early adolescent years. Teachers' College Record, 94, 568-587.

58

Motivation

Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage/environment fit: Developmentally appropriate classrooms for early adolescents. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 3, pp. 139-181). New York: Academic Press.

Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Reuman, D., Mac Iver, D., & Feldlaufer, H. (1993). Negative effects of traditional middle-schools on students' motivation. Elementary School Journal, 93, 553- 574.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1985). Teacher expectations and student motivation. In J. B. Dusek (Ed.), Teacher expectations (pp. 185-217). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the achiever: The structure of adolescents' academic achievement related-beliefs and self-perceptions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 215-225.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109-132.

Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Flanagan, C., Miller, C., Reuman, D., & Yee, D. (1989). Self-concepts, domain values, and self-esteem: Relations and changes at early adolescence. Journal of Personality, 57, 283-310.

Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Harold, R., & Blumenfeld, P. B. (1993). Age and gender differences in children's self- and task perceptions during elementary school. Child Development, 64, 830-847.

Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Volume Ed.) Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., Vol. III, pp. 1017-1095). New York: Wiley

Eccles (Parsons), J., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., & Midgley, C. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motivation (pp.75-146). San Francisco, CA.: W. H. Freeman.

Elder, G. H., Eccles, J. S., Ardelt, M., & Lord, S. (1995). Inner-city parents under economic pressure: Perspectives on the strategies of parenting. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 6, 81-86.

Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 169-189.

Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. (2001). A 2 x 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501-509.

Elliot, A. J., Chirkov, V.I., Kim, Y., & Sheldon, K.M. (2001). A cross-cultural analysis of avoidance (relative to approach) personal goals. Psychological Science, 6, 505-510.

Elliot, A. J., Dweck, C. S. (Eds.). (in press). Handbook of competence and motivation. New York: Guilford.

Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461-475.

Entwisle, D. R., & Alexander, K. L. (1990). Beginning school math competence: Minority and majority comparisons. Child Development, 61, 454-471.

Entwisle, D. R., & Alexander, K. L. (1993). Entry into school: The beginning school transition and educational stratification in the United States. Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 401-423.

Entwisle, D. R., & Alexander, K. L. (1999). Early schooling and social stratification. In R. C. Pianta & M. J. Cox (Eds.), The transition to kindergarten (pp. 13-38). Baltimore: P. H. Brookes Publishing.

Feather, N. T. (1982). Expectancy - value approaches: Present status and future directions. In N. T. Feather (Ed.), Expectations and actions: Expectancy-value models in psychology (pp. 395-420). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Feather, N. T. (1988). Values, valences, and course enrollment: Testing the role of personal values within an expectancy - value framework. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 381-391.

Feather, N. T. (1992). Values, valences, expectations, and actions. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 109-124.Felner, R. D., Jackson, A. W., Kasak, D., Mulhall, P., Brand, S., & Flowers, N. (1997). The impact of school

reform for the middle years: Longitudinal study of a network engaged in Turning Points-based comprehensive school transformation. Phi Delta Kappan,78, 528-532; 541-550.

Ferguson, R. F. (1998). Teachers’ perceptions and expectations and the Black-White test score gap. In C. Jencks & M Phillips (Eds.), The Black-White test score gap. (pp.273- 317). Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institute Press.

Fine, M. (1991). Framing dropouts: Notes on the politics of an urban public high school. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117-142.

59

Motivation

Fiqueira-McDonough, J. (1986). School context, gender, and delinquency. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 15, 79-98.

Ford, M. E. (1992). Human motivation: Goals, emotions, and personal agency beliefs. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. U. (1986). Black students' school success: Coping with "the burden of 'acting white'".

The Urban Review, 18, 176-206.Forsterling, F. (1985). Attributional retraining: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 495-512.Fredericks, J., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). Children’s competence and value beliefs from childhood through

adolescence: Growth trajectories in two male sex-typed domains. Developmental Psychology, 38, 519-533.

Frome, P., & Eccles J. (1995, April). Underestimation of academic ability in the middle school Years. Based on poster presented at the SRCD, Indianapolis, IN.

Frome, P. M. & Eccles, J. S. (1998). Parents' influence on children's achievement-related perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2) 435-452.

Fuligni, A. J., & Eccles, J. S. (1993). Perceived parent-child relationships and early adolescents' orientation towards peers. Developmental Psychology, 29, 622-632.

Fuligni, A. J., Eccles, J. S., Barber, B. L. (1995). The long-term effects of seventh-grade ability grouping in mathematics. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 58-89.

Fuligni, A. J., & Tseng, V. (1999). Family obligation and the academic motivation of adolescents from immigrant and American-born families. In T. Urdan (Ed.), Advances in motivation and achievement, Volume 11: The role of context (pp. 159-183). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 148-162.

Furstenberg, F., Cook, T., Eccles, J., Elder, G., & Sameroff, A. (1999). Managing to make it: Urban families in adolescent success. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Galper, A., Wigfield, A., & Seefeldt, C. (1997). Head Start parents' beliefs about their children's abilities, task values, and performance on different activities. Child Development, 68, 897-907.

Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1994). Regulating motivation and cognition in the classroom: The role of self-schemas and self-regulatory strategies. In D. H. Schunk and B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 127-154). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Carcia Coll, C., T., Crnic, K., Hamerty, G., Wasik, B. H., Jenkins, R., Vazquez Garcia, H., & McAdoo, H. P. (1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Child Development, 20,1891-1914.

Garcia Coll, C., & Pachter, L. M. (2002). Ethnic and minority parenting. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (2nd Ed., Vol. 4). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Goodnow, C. (1993). Classroom belonging among early adolescent students: Relationships to motivation and achievement. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13(1), 21-43.

Goodnow, J. J., & Collins, W. A. (1990). Development according to parents: The nature, sources, and consequences of parents' ideas. London: Erlbaum.

Gottfried, A. E., (1985). Academic intrinsic motivation in elementary and junior high school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(6), 631-645.

Gottfried, A. E. (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 525-538.

Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfried, A. W. (2001). Continuity of academic intrinsic motivation from childhood through late adolescence: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 3-13.

Graham, S. (1991). A review of attribution theory in achievement contexts. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 5-38.

Graham, S. (1992). Most of the subjects were European American and middle class: Trends in published research on African Americans in selected APA journals 1970-1989. American Psychologist, 47, 629-639.

Graham, S. (1994). Motivation in African Americans. Review of Educational Research, 64, 55-117.Graham, S., & Barker, G. (1990). The downside of help: An attributional-developmental analysis of helping

behavior as a low ability cue. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 7-14.Graham, S., & Golan, S. (1991). Motivational influences on cognition: Task involvement, ego involvement, and

depth of information processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 187-194.Graham, S., & Taylor, A. Z. (2002). Ethnicity, gender, and the development of achievement values. In

A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 123-146). San Diego: Academic Press.

60

Motivation

Graham, S., Taylor, A. Z. & Hudley, C. (1998). Exploring achievement values among ethnic minority early adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 606-620.

Grant, H. & Dweck, C.S. (2001). Cross-cultural responses to failure: Considering outcome attributions with different goals. In F. Salili, C.Y. Chui, & Y.Y. Hong (Eds.), Student motivation: The culture and context of learning (pp. 203-219), New York: Plenum.

Greeno, J. G., Collins, A.M., Resnick, L.B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15-46). London, England: Prentice Hall International.

Grolnick, W. S., Gurland, S. T., Jacob, K. F., & Decourcey, W. (2002). The development of self-determination in middle childhood and adolescence. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 147-171). San Diego: Academic Press.

Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children's learning: An experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 52, 890-898.

Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children's self-regulation and competence in schools. Journal of Educational Psychology, 8, 143-154.

Grolnick, W. S., & Slowiaczek, M. L. (1994). Parents' involvement in children's schooling: A multidimensional conceptualization and motivational model. Child Development, 65, 237-252.

Guay, F., Boivin, M., & Hodges, E.V. E. (1999). Predicting change in academic achievement: A model of peer experiences and self-system processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 105-115.

Guay, F., Marsh, H. W., & Boivin, M. (2003). Academic self-concept and academic achievement: Developmental perspectives on their causal ordering. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 124-136.

Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., Scafiddi, N., & Tonks, S. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through Concept Oriented Reading Instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 403-423.

Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & Perencevich, K. (Eds.) (2004). Motivating reading comprehension: Concept Oriented Reading Instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gutman, L., & Midgley, C. (2000). The role of protective factors in supporting the academic achievement of poor African American students during the middle school transition. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29, 223-248.

Gutman, L. M., Sameroff, A. J., & Eccles, J. S., (2002). The academic achievement of African American students during early adolescence: An examination of multiple risk, promotive, and protective factors. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 367 –399.

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

Harackiewicz, J. M., Baron, K. E., Pintrich, P. R., Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Revision of achievement goal theory: Necessary and illuminating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 638-645.

Hare, B. R. (1985). Stability and change in self-perceptions and achievement among African American adolescents: A longitudinal study. Journal of African American Psychology, 11, 29-42.

Harter, S. (1981). A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the classroom: Motivational and informational components. Developmental Psychology, 17, 300-312.

Harter, S. (1982). The Perceived Competence Scale for Children. Child Development, 53, 87-97.Harter, S. (1990). Causes, correlates and the functional role of global self-worth: A life-span perspective. In J.

Kolligian & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Perceptions of competence and incompetence across the life-span (pp. 67-98). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Harter, S. (1998). The development of self-representations. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 3, 5th Ed., pp. 553-617). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Harter, S., Whitesell, N. R., & Kowalski, P. (1992). Individual differences in the effects of educational transitions on young adolescents’ perceptions of competence and motivational orientation. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 809-835

Heckhausen, H. (1977). Achievement motivation and its constructs: A cognitive model. Motivation and Emotion, 1, 283-329.

Heckhausen, H. (1987). Emotional components of action: Their ontogeny as reflected in achievement behavior. In D. Gîrlitz & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Curiosity, imagination, and play. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hedelin, L. & Sjîberg, L. (1989). The development of interests in the Swedish comprehensive school. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 4, 17-35.

61

Motivation

Heine, S.J., Lehman, D.R., Ide, E., Leung, C. Kitayama, S., Takata, T., & Matsumoto, H. (2001). Divergent consequences of success and failure in Japan and North America: An investigation of self-improving motivations and malleable selves. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 599-615.

Hess, R. D., Chih-Mei, & McDevitt, T. M. (1987). Cultural variations in family beliefs about children's performance in mathematics: Comparisons among People's Republic of China, Chinese-American, and Caucasian-American families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 179-188.

Heyman, G. D., Dweck, C. S., & Cain, K. M. (1993). Young children's vulnerability to self-blame and helplessness: Relationships to beliefs about goodness. Child Development, 63, 401-415.

Hickey, D.T. & McCaslin, M. (2001). A comparative, sociocultural analysis of context and motivation. In S. Volet & S. Jarvela, (Eds), Motivation in learning contexts: Theoretical advances and methodological implications (pp. 33-55). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press, Inc.

Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60, 549-571.

Hidi, S. (2001). Interest, reading, and learning: Theoretical and practical considerations. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 191-209.

Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21 st Century. Review of Educational Research, 70, 151-180.

Hill, K. T., & Sarason, S. B. (1966). The relation of test anxiety and defensiveness to test and school performance over the elementary school years: A further longitudinal study. Monographs for the Society for Research in Child Development, 31 (2, Serial No. 104).

Hill, K. T., & Wigfield, A. (1984). Test anxiety: A major educational problem and what to do about it. Elementary School Journal, 85, 105-126.

Hoffmann, L., & Haeussler. (April 18 - 22, 1995). Modification of interests by instruction. Paper presented at Annual AERA Meeting in San Francisco, CA.

Hokoda, A., & Fincham, F. D. (1995). Origins of children's helpless and mastery achievement patterns in the family. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 375-385.

Holland, A., & Andre, T. (1987). Participation in extracurricular activities in secondary school: What is known, what needs to be known? Review of Educational Research, 57, 437-466.

Holloway, S. D. (1988). Concepts of ability and effort in Japan and the United States. Review of Educational Research, 58, 327-345.

Hunt, J. M., & Paraskevopoulos, J. (1980). Children's psychological development as a function of the inaccuracy of their mothers' knowledge of their abilities. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 136, 285-298.

Husman, J. (1998). The effects of perceptions of the future on intrinsic motivation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.

Husman, J., & Lens, W. (1999). The role of the future in the study of motivation. Educational Psychologist, 34,113-125

Huston, A. C., McLoyd, V., & Coll, C. G. (1994). Children and poverty: Issues in contemporary research. Child Development, 65, 275-282.

Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York: Teachers College Press.

Jacobs, J. E. (1992). The influence of gender stereotypes on parent and child math attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 518-527.

Jacobs, J. E., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The influence of parent stereotypes on parent and child ability beliefs in three domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 932-944.

Jacobs, J. E., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Parents, task values, and real-life achievement-related choices. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance (pp. 405-439). San Diego: Academic Press.

Jacobs, J., Davis-Kean, P. E., Bleeker, M., Eccles, J. S., & Malanchuk, O. (2004). “I can do it but I don’t want to.” The impact of parents, interests, and activities on gender differences in math. In A. Gallagher & J. Kaufman (Eds.), Gender differences in mathematics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Jacobs, J., Lanza, S., Osgood, D. W., Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Ontogeny of children's self-beliefs: Gender and domain differences across grades one through 12. Child Development, 73, 509-527.

James, W. (1892/1963). Psychology. New York: Fawcett.Jencks, C. L., & Brown, M. (1975). The effects of high schools on their students. Harvard Educational Review,

45, 273-324.

62

Motivation

Jennings, K. D. (1991). Early development of mastery motivation and its relation to the self-concept. In M. Bullock (Ed.), The development of intentional action. Cognitive, motivational, and interactive processes (Vol. 22, Contributions to human development). Basel: Karger Press.

Jussim, L., Eccles, J., & Madon, S. (1996). Social perception, social stereotypes, and teacher expectations: Accuracy and the quest for the powerful self-fulfilling prophecy. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 281-388). New York: Academic Press.

Juvonen, J., & Graham, S. (Eds.) (2001). Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized. New York: Guilford Press.

Juvonen, J., Nishnia, A., & Graham, S. (2001). Self-views and peer perceptions of victim status among early adolescents. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 105-124). New York: Guilford Press.

Juvonen, J., Le, V. N., Kaganoff, T., Augustine, C., & Constant, L. (2004). Focus on the wonder years: Challenges facing the American middle school. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Juvonen, J., & Wentzel, K. R. (Eds.) (1996). Social motivation: Understanding children's school adjustment. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kao, G, & Thompson, J.S. (2003). Racial and ethnic stratification in educational achievement and attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 417-442.

Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2002). Should childhood be a journey or a race? Response to Harackiewicz et al. (2002). Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 646-48.

Kindermann, T. A. (1993). Natural peer groups as contexts for individual development: The case of children's motivation in school. Developmental Psychology, 29, 970-977.

Kindermann, T. A., McCollam, T. L., & Gibbson, E. Jr. (1996). In peer networks and students' classroom engagement during childhood and adolescence. In K. Wentzel, & J. Juvonen (Eds.), Social motivation: Understanding children's school adjustment. Cambridge University Press.

Kitsantas, A., Zimmerman, B. J., & Cleary, T. (2000). The role of observation and emulation in the development of athletic self-regulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 811-817.

Knight, R. (1981). Parents’ beliefs about cognitive development: The role of experience. In A. R. Nesdale, C. Pratt, R. Grieve, J. Field, D. Illingworth, & J. Hogben (Eds.), Advances in child development: Theory and research (pp. 226-229). Perth: University of Western Australia Press.

Kohlberg, L. (1966). A cognitive-development analysis of children's sex-role concepts and attitudes. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), The Development of sex differences (pp. 81-72). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Kohn, M. L. (1997). Class and conformity: A study in values, with a reassessment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Köller, O., Baumert, J. & Schnabel. K. (2001). Does interest matter? The relationship between academic interest and achievement in mathematics. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 448-470.

Kopp, C. B. (1991). Young children's progression to self-regulation. In M. Bullock (Ed.), The development of intentional action. Cognitive, motivational, and interactive processes (Vol. 22, Contributions to human development). Basel: Karger Press.

Krapp, A. (2002). Structural and dynamic aspects of interest development: Theoretical considerations from an ontogenetic perspective. Learning and Instruction, 12, 383-409.

Krapp, A., Hidi, S. & Renninger, K. A. (1992). Interest, learning and development. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 3-25). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kuhl, J. (1987). Action control: The maintenance of motivational states. In F. Halisch & J. Kuhl (Eds.), Motivation, intention, and volition (pp. 279-307). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Kuhl, J. (2000). A functional design approach to motivation and self-regulation: The dynamics of personality systems and interactions. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 111-169). San Diego: Academic Press.

Kuhl, J., & Kraska, K. (1989). Self-regulation and metamotivation: Computational mechanisms, development, and assessment. In R. Kanfer, P. L. Ackerman, & R. Cudeck (Eds.), Abilities, motivation, and methodology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. L. (1987). Effects of ability grouping on student achievement. Equity & Excellence, 23, 22-30.

Lafromboise, T. Coleman, H.L.K., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact of biculturalism. Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 395-412.

Larson, R., & Richards, M. H. (1991). Daily companionship in late childhood and early adolescence: Changing developmental contexts. Child Development, 62, 284-300.

63

Motivation

Lee, S.J. (1994). Beyond the model-minority stereotype: Voices of high- and low-achieving Asian American students. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 25, 413-429.

Lee, V. E., & Bryk, A.S. (1989). A multilevel model of the social distribution of high school achievement. Sociology of Education, 62, 172-192.

Lee, V.E. & Croninger, R.G. (1994). The Relative Importance of Home and School in Development of Literacy Skills for Middle-Grade Students. American Journal of Education, 102 (3), 286-329.

Lee, V. E. & Smith, J. (2001). Restructuring high schools for equity and excellence: What works. New York: Teachers College Press.

Lens, W. (1986). Future time perspective: A cognitive-motivational construct. In D. R. Brown & J. Veroff (Eds.), Frontiers of motivational psychology (pp. 173-190). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Lepper, M. R. & Chabay, R. W. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and instruction: Conflicting views on the role of motivational processes in computer-based education. Educational Psychologist, 20, 217-230.

Lepper, M. R. & Green, D. (1978). The hidden cost of rewards: New perspectives on the psychology of human motivation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lepper, M. R., & Henderlong, J. (2000). Turning “play” into “work”: 25 years of research on intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance (pp. 257-307). San Diego: Academic Press.

Linver, M.R., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Kohen, D.E. (2002). Family processes as pathways from income to young children’s development. Developmental Psychology, 38, 719-734.

Lipsitz, J., Mizell, M. H., Jackson, A. W., & Austin, L. M. (1997). Speaking with one voice: A manifesto for middle-grades reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 533-540.

Lord, S., Eccles, J. S., & McCarthy, K. (1994). Risk and protective factors in the transition to junior high school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14, 162-199.

Luster, T., Rhoades, K. & Hass, B. (1989) The relation between parental values and parenting behavior: A test of the Kohn hypothesis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 139-147.

Lynch, M., & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Children's relationships with adults and peers: An examination of elementary and junior high school students. Journal of School Psychology, 35(1), 81-99.

Mac Iver, D. (1987). Classroom factors and student characteristics predicting students' use of achievement standards during ability self-assessment. Child Development, 58, 1258-1271.

Mac Iver, D. J., & Epstein, J. L. (1993). Middle grades research: Not yet mature, but no longer a child. Elementary School Journal, 93, 519-533.

Mac Iver, D. J., & Plank, J. B. (1997). Improving urban schools: Developing the talents of students placed at risk. In J. L. Irvin (Ed.), What current research says to the middle level practitioner (pp. 243-256). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Mac Iver, D. J., Reuman, D. A., & Main, S. R. (1995). Social structuring of school: Studying what is, illuminating what could be. In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 46).

Mac Iver, D. J., Young, E. M., & Washburn, B. (2002). Instructional practices and motivation during middle school (with special attention to science). In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), The development of achievement motivation (pp. 333-351). San Diego: Academic Press.

Mac Iver, D. J., Stipek, D. J., & Daniels, D. H. (1991). Explaining within-semester changes in student effort in junior high school and senior high school courses. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 201-211.

Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1996). Transforming school cultures. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Mahoney, J. L., & Cairns, R. B. (1997). Do extracurricular activities protect against early school dropout?

Developmental Psychology, 33, 2414-253.Mantzicopoulos, P., French, B. F., & Maller, S. J. (2004). Factor structure of the Pictorial Scale of Perceived

Competence and Social Acceptance with two pre-elementary samples. Child Development, 75, 1214-1228.Marjoribanks, K. (2002). Family and school capital: Towards a context theory of students' school

outcomes. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Markus. H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and

motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.Markus, H., R., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954-969.Markus, H. R., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective. Annual

Review of Psychology, 38, 299-337.

64

Motivation

Marsh, H. W. (1989). Age and sex effects in multiple dimensions of self-concept: Preadolescence to early adulthood. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 417-430.

Marsh, H. W. (1990a). A multidimensional, hierarchical self-concept: Theoretical and empirical justification. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 77-171.

Marsh, H. W. (1990b). The causal ordering of academic self-concept and academic achievement: A multiwave, longitudinal analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82.

Marsh, H. W., & Ayotte, V. (2003). Do multiple dimensions of self-concept become more differentiated with age: The differential distinctiveness hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 687-706.

Marsh, H. W., Ellis, L. A., & Craven, R. G. (2002). How do preschool children feel about themselves? Unraveling measurement and multidimensional self-concept structure. Developmental Psychology, 38, 376-393.

Marsh, H. W., & Yeung, A. S. (1997). Causal effects of academic self-concept on academic achievement: Structural equation models of longitudinal data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 41-54.

Martin, R., Drew, K., Gaddis, L., & Moseley, M. (1988). Prediction of elementary school achievement from preschool temperament; Three studies. School Psychology Review, 17 (pp. 125-137).

Massimini, F. & Carli, M. (1988). The systematic assessment of flow in daily experience. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness (pp. 266-287). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Matsumoto, D. & Sanders, M. (1988). Emotional experiences during engagement in intrinsically and extrinsically motivated tasks. Motivation and Emotion, 12, 353-369.

Matute-Bianchi, M.E. (1986). Ethnic identities and patterns of school success and failure among Mexican-descent and Japanese-American students in a California high school: An ethnographic analysis. American Journal of Education, 95, 233-255.

McCall, R. B., Evahn. C. & Kratzer, L. (1992). High school underachievers: What do they achieve as adults? Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

McGillicuddy-De Lisi, A., & De Lisi, R. (2002). Emergent themes in the development of sex differences in cognition. In A. McGillicuddy-De Lisi & R. De Lisi (Eds.), Biology, society, and behavior: The development of sex differences in cognition (Advances in Applied Developmental Psychology, 21, 243-258). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.

McGillicuddy-DeLisi, A. V., & Sigel, I. E. (1991). Family environments and children's representational thinking. In (Eds.) Advances in reading/language research. Vol. 5 (pp. 63-90). JAI Press.

McInerney, D. M., Hinkley, J., Dowson, M., & Van Etten, S. (1998). Aboriginal, Anglo, and immigrant Australian students' motivational beliefs about personal academic success: Are there cultural differences? Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 621-629.

McInerney, D. M., & Van Etten, S. (2004). Big theories revisited: The challenge. In D. M. McInerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Big theories revisited (Vol. 4: Research on sociocultural influences on motivation and learning, pp. 1-13). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Press.

McLloyd, V. C. (1990). The impact of economic hardship on African American families and children: Psychological distress, parenting, and socioemotional development. Child Development, 61, 311-346.

McNeal, R. B. (1995). Extracurricular activities and high school dropouts. Sociology of Education, 68, 62-81.Meece, J. L. (1991). The classroom context and students' motivational goals. In M. Maehr & P. Pintrich (Eds.),

Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 7, pp. 261-286). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press,Meece, J. L. (1994). The role of motivation in self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman

(Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 25-44). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Meece, J. L. & Kurtz-Costes, B. (2001). Introduction: The schooling of ethnic minority children and youth. Educational Psychologist, 36, 1-7.

Meece, J. L., & Miller, S. D. (2001). A longitudinal analysis of elementary school students’ achievement goals in literacy activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 454-480.

Meece, J. L., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1990). Predictors of math anxiety and its consequences for young adolescents' course enrollment intentions and performances in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 60-70.

Meichenbaum, D., & Butler, L. (1980). Toward a conceptual model of the treatment of test anxiety: Implications for research and treatment. In I. G. Sarason (Ed.), Test anxiety: Theory, research, and applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

65

Motivation

Middleton, M. J., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An unexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 710-718.

Midgley, C. (2002). Goals, goal structures, and adaptive learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Midgley, C., & Edelin, K. C. (1998). Middle school reform and early adolescent well-being: The good news and

the bad. Educational Psychologist, 33, 195-206.Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J.S. (1989). Student/teacher relations and attitudes toward mathematics

before and after the transition to junior high school. Child Development, 60, 981-992.

Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M., Maehr, M. L., Urdan, T., Anderman, L. H., Anderman, E., & Roeser, R. L. (1998). The development and validation of scales assessing students’ achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 113-131.

Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for what, for whom, and under what circumstances? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 77-87.

Miller, S. A. (1988). Parents' beliefs about children's cognitive development. Child Development, 59, 259-285.Miller, S. A., & Davis, T. L. (1992). Beliefs about children: A comparative study of mothers, teachers, peers, and

self. Child Development, 63, 1251-1265.Miller, S. A., Manhal, M., & Mee, L. L. (1991). Parental beliefs, parental accuracy, and children's cognitive

performance: A Search for causal relations. Developmental Psychology, 27, 267-276.Mischel, W., & Mischel, C. (1983). Development of children's knowledge of self-control strategies . Child

Development, 54, 603-619.Mistry, R.S., Vandewater, E.A., Houston, A.C., & McLoyd, V.C. (2002). Economic well-being and

children’s social adjustment: The role of family process in an ethnically diverse low-income sample. Child Development, 73, 935-951.

Morris, L. W., Davis, M. A., & Hutchings, C. J. (1981). Cognitive and emotional components of anxiety: Literature review and a revised worry-emotionality scale. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 541-555.

Murphy, P. K., & Alexander, P. A. A motivated exploration of motivation terminology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 3-53.

National Research Council (2004). Engaging schools: Fostering high school students’ motivation to learn. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Nelson Le Gall, S., & Glor-Sheib, S. (1985). Help seeking in elementary classrooms: An observational study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 58-71.

Nelson-Le Gall, S., & Jones, E. (1990). Cognitive-motivational influences on task-related help-seeking behavior of Black children. Child Development, 61, 581-589.

Newman, R. S. (1994). Adaptive help-seeking: A strategy of self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman: Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 283-301). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Newman, R. S. (2002). What do I need to do to succeed… when I don’t understand what I am doing!? Developmental influences on students’ adaptive help-seeking. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 285-306). San Diego: Academic Press.

Newman, R. S., & Goldin, L. (1990). Children’s reluctance to seek help with schoolwork. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 92-100.

Newman, R. S., & Schwager, M. T. (1995). Students’ help seeking during problem solving: Effects of grade, goals, and prior achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 94, 3-17.

Nicholls, J. G. (1976). When a test measures more than its name: The case of the Test Anxiety Scale for Children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 20, 321-326.

Nicholls, J. G. (1978). The development of the concepts of effort and ability, perceptions of academic attainment, and the understanding that difficult tasks require more ability. Child Development, 49, 800-814.

Nicholls, J. G. (1979). Development of perception of own attainment and causal attributions for success and failure in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 94-99.

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

Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

66

Motivation

Nicholls, J. G. (1990). What is ability and why are we mindful of it? A developmental perspective. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Kolligian (Eds.), Competence considered (pp. 11-40). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Nicholls, J. G., Cobb, P., Yackel, E., Wood, T., & Wheatley, G. (1990). Students' theories of mathematics and their mathematical knowledge: Multiple dimensions of assessment. In G. Kulm (Ed.)., Assessing higher order thinking in mathematics (pp. 137-154). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Nicholls. J. G., & Miller, A. T. (1984). The differentiation of the concepts of difficulty and ability. Child Development, 54, 951-959.

Oakes, J., Gamoran, A., & Page, R.N. (1992). Curriculum differentiation: Opportunities, outcomes, and meanings. In P. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 570-608). New York: Macmillan.

Oetting, E. & Beauvais, F. (1991). Orthogonal cultural identification theory: The cultural identification of minority adolescents. The International Journal of Addictions, 25, 655-685.

Ogbu, J. (1978). Minority education and caste. New York: Academic Press.

Ogbu, J. (1981). Origins of human competence: A cultural-ecological perspective. Child Development, 52, 413-429.

Ogbu, J. (1985). Cultural ecology of competence among inner-city blacks. In H. McAdoo & J. Mc Adoo (Eds.), Black children social, educational, and parental environments. Sage Publications Inc., Newbury Park.

Ogbu, J. (1992). Understanding cultural diversity and learning. Educational Researcher, 21, 5-14.Okagaki, L. (2001). Triarchic model of minority children’s school achievement. Educational Psychologist,

36, 9-20.Olson. L. (1997). Made in America: Immigrant students in our public schools. New York, NY: New Press.Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation

of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3-72.Padilla, A.M. & Gonzalez, R. (2001). Academic performance of immigrant and U.S. born Mexican-Heritage

students: Effects of schooling in Mexico and Bilingual/English language instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 727-742.

Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543-578.Pallas, A. M., Entwisle, D. R., Alexander, K. L. & Stluka. M. F. (1994). Ability-group effects: Instructional,

social, or institutional? Sociology of Education, 67, 27-46.Paris, S. G., & Byrnes, J. P (1989). The constructivist approach to self-regulation and learning in the classroom.

In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Patrick, H. (1997). Social self-regulation: Exploring the relations between children’s social relationships, academic self-regulation, and school performance. Educational Psychologist, 32, 209-220.

Pekrun, R. (1993). Facets of adolescents' academic motivation: A longitudinal expectancy-value approach. In M. Maehr & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Bd. 8, S. 139-189). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Pekrun, R. (2000). A social-cognitive, control-value theory of achievement emotions. In J. Heckhausen (Ed.), Motivational psychology of human development (pp. 143-163). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J. & Brière, N. M. (2001). Associations among perceived autonomy support, forms of self-regulation, and persistence: A prospective study. Motivation and Emotion, 25, 279-306.

Phinney, J.S. & Devich-Navarro, M. (1997). Variations in bicultural identification among African-American and Mexican-American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 7, 3-32.

Pianta, R. C., & Cox, M. J. (1999). The changing nature of the transition to school: Trends for the next decade. In R. C. Pianta & M. J. Cox (Eds.), The transition to kindergarten (pp. 363-379). Baltimore: P. H. Brookes Publishing.

Pianta, R. C., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Cox, M. J. (1999). Introduction: An ecological approach to kindergarten transition. In R. C. Pianta & M. J. Cox (Eds.), The transition to kindergarten (pp. 3-12). Baltimore: P. H. Brookes Publishing.

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

67

Motivation

Pintrich, P. R. (2000b). Multiple pathways, multiple goals: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 54-555.

Pintrich, P. R. (2000c). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451-502). San Diego: Academic Press.

Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667-686.

Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63, 167-199.

Pintrich, P. R. & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students' motivational beliefs and their cognitive engagement in classroom academic tasks. In D. Schunk & J. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 149-183). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2003). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and application (2nd Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill-Prentice Hall.

Pintrich, P. R., & Zusho, A. (2002). The development of academic self-regulation: The role of cognitive and motivational factors. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 250-284). San Diego: Academic Press.

Pomerantz, E. M., & Ruble, D. N. (1997). Distinguishing multiple dimensions of conceptions of ability: Implications for self-evaluation. Child Development, 68, 1165-1180.

Pomerantz, E. M., & Saxon, J. L. (2001). Conceptions of ability as stable and self-evaluative processes: A longitudinal examination. Child Development, 72. 152-173.

Portes, A. & Rumbaut, R.G. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Quintana, S.M. & Vera, E.M. (1999). Mexican-American children’s ethnic identity, understanding of ethnic prejudice, and parental ethnic socialization. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 21, 387-404.

Ramey, C. T., & Ramey, S. l. (1999). Beginning school for children at risk. In R. C. Pianta & M. J. Cox (Eds.), The transition to kindergarten (pp. 217-251). Baltimore: P. H. Brookes Publishing.

Raynor, J. O. (1982). Future orientation, self-evaluation, and achievement motivation: Use of an expectancy X value theory of personality functioning and change. In N. T. Feather (Ed.), Expectations and actions: Expectancy-value models in psychology (pp. 97-124). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Reeve, J., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Self-determination theory: A dialectical framework for understanding sociocultural influences on student motivation. In D. M. McInerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Big theories revisited (Vol. 4: Sociocultural influences on motivation and learning, (pp. 31-60). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Press.

Reeve, J., Nix, G., & Hamm, D. (2003). Testing models of the experience of self-determination in intrinsic motivation and the conundrum of choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 375-392.

Renninger, K.A. (1990). Children's play interests, representation, and activity. In R. Fivush & J. Hudson (Eds.), Knowing and remembering in young children(pp.127-165). Cambridge University Press.

Renninger, K. A. (2000). Individual interest and its implications for understanding intrinsic motivation. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (pp. 373-404). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Renninger, K. A., Ewen, L. & Lasher, A. K. (2002). Individual interest as context in expository text and mathematical word problems. Learning and Instruction, 12, 467-491.

Renninger, K. A., Hidi, S. & Krapp, A. (Eds.). (1992). The role of interest in learning and development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rheinberg, F.,Vollmeyer, R., & Rollett, W. (2000). Motivation and action in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 503-529). San Diego: Academic Press.

Roberts, T. A. (1991). Gender and the influence of evaluations on self-assessments in achievement settings. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 297-308.

Roderick, M., & Camburn, E. (1999). Risk and recovery from course failure in the early years of high school. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 303-344.

Roeser, R.W. (2004a). Competing schools of thought in achievement goal theory? In M.L. Maehr & P.R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement, Volume 13: Motivating Students, Improving Schools (pp. 265-299). New York: Elsevier.

Roeser, R.W. (2004b, July). The diversity of selfways in school during adolescence project. Paper presented at the annual meeting of William T. Grant Faculty Scholars Program, Vail, CO.

68

Motivation

Roeser, R.W., & Eccles, J.S., (2000). Schooling and mental health. A.J. Sameroff, M. Lewis, & S.M. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of Developmental Psychopathology, Second Edition (135-156). New York: Plenum.

Roeser, R.W., Eccles, J.S. & Strobel, K. (1998). Linking the study of schooling and mental health: Selected issues and empirical illustrations at the level of the individual. Educational Psychologist, 33, 153-176.

Roeser, R.W., Lowe, A., Sattler, R., Gehlbach, H., & Strobel, K.R. (2003, April). On identity and motivation to learn among Latino adolescents: Patterns, dynamics, and relation to educational outcomes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Roeser, R.W., Marachi, R., & Gelhbach, H. (2002). A goal theory perspective on teachers’ professional identities and the contexts of teaching. In C.M. Midgley (Ed.), Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning (pp. 205-241). New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological environment and early adolescents' psychological and behavioral functioning in school: The mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 408-422.

Roeser, R.W. & Nasir, N. (in press). Identity and self processes in school learning, achievement and well-being. In Alexander, P., & Winne, P.H. (Eds). Handbook of educational psychology (2nd edition). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Roeser, R.W. & Rodriquez, R. (2004, April). On academic motivation, achievement, and the diversity of selfways in school during early adolescence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Roeser, R.W., Strobel, K.R., Quihuis, G. (2002). Studying early academic motivation, social-emotional functioning, and engagement in learning: Variable- and person-centered approaches. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 1-24.

Rosenholtz, S. J., & Simpson, C. (1984). The formation of ability conceptions: Developmental trend or social construction? Review of Educational Research, 54, 31-63.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1-28.

Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. G. (1998). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Volume Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., Vol. III, pp. 619-700). New York: John Wiley.

Rubin, K. H., Coplan, R., Chen, X., Buskirk, A. A., & Wojslawowicz, J. C. (2005). Peer relationships in childhood. In M. Bornstein & M. Lamb (eds.), Developmental science: An advanced textbook (5th

ed., p. 469-512). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Rugerio, K. M., & Taylor, D. M. (1995). Coping with discrimination: How disadvantaged group

members perceive the discrimination that confronts them. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 826-838.

Ruble, D. (1983). The development of social comparison processes and their role in achievement-related self-socialization. In E. T. Higgins, D. N. Ruble, and W. W. Hartup (Eds.), Social cognition and social development: A sociocultural perspective (pp. 134-157). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ruble, D. N. (1994). A phase model of transitions: Cognitive and motivational consequences. IN M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 26, pp. 163-214). New York: Academic Press.

Ruble, D. N., & Martin, C. L. (1998). Gender development. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 933-1016). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Ryan, A. M. (2001). The peer group as a context for the development of young adolescents’ motivation and achievement. Child Development, 72, 1135-1150.

Ryan, A. M., Gheen, M. H., & Midgley, C. (1998). Why do some students avoid asking for help? An examination of the interplay among students’ academic self-efficacy, teachers’ social-emotional role, and the classroom goal structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 528-535.

Ryan, A. M., Pintrich, P.R., & Midgley, C. (2001). Avoiding seeking help in the classroom: Who and why? Educational Psychology Review, 13, 93-114.

Ryan, R. M. (1992). Agency and organization: Intrinsic motivation, autonomy, and the self in psychological development. In J. Jacobs (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol., 40, pp. 1-56). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749-761.

69

Motivation

Ryan, R. M., Connell, J. P., & Deci, E. L. (198). A motivational analysis of self-determination and self-regulation in education. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 2, pp. 13-51). Orlando, FL: Academic press.

Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000b). When rewards compete with nature: The undermining of intrinsic motivation and self-regulation. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance (pp. 13-54). San Diego: Academic Press.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory: an organismic-dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination theory research (pp. 3-33). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Ryan, R. M., Connell, J. P. & Deci, E. L. (1985). A motivational analysis of self-determination and self-regulation in education. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education. Vol. 2: The classroom milieu (pp. 13-51). London: Academic Press.

Sage, N. A., & Kindermann, T. A. (1999). Peer networks, behavior contingencies, and children's engagement in the classroom. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45, 143-171.

Sansone, C., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (Eds.) (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance. San Diego: Academic Press.

Sansone, C., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Looking beyond rewards: The problem and promise of intrinsic motivation. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance (pp. 1-9). San Diego: Academic Press.

Sarason, I. G. (1980). Introduction to the study of test anxiety. In I. G. Sarason (Ed.), Test anxiety: Theory, research, and application (pp. 3-14). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning, and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 299-323.Schiefele, U. (1996a). Motivation und Lernen mit Texten [Motivation and text learning]. Göttingen:

Hogrefe.

Schiefele, U. (1996b). Topic interest, text representation, and quality of experience. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 3-18.

Schiefele, U. (1999). Interest and learning from text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 257-279.Schiefele, U. (2001). The role of interest in motivation and learning. In J. M. Collis & S. Messick (Eds.),

Intelligence and personality: Bridging the gap in theory and measurement (pp. 163-194). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schiefele, U. & Krapp, A. (1996). Topic interest and free recall of expository text. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 141-160.

Schiefele, U., Krapp, A. & Winteler, A. (1992). Interest as a predictor of academic achievement: A meta-analysis of research. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 183-212). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schiefele, U. & Schreyer, I. (1994). Intrinsische Lernmotivation und Lernen [Intrinsic motivation and learning]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 8, 1-13.

Schneider, B. & Coleman, J. S. (1993). Parents, their children, and schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Schneider, K. (1996). Intrinsically motivated activity as an example of creativity and related behavioral

systems. In H. Heckhausen & J. Kuhl (Eds.), Motivation, volition, and action. Gottingen: Hogrefe.

Schunk, D. H. (1987). Peer models and children's behavioral change. Review of Educational Research, 57, 149-174.

Schunk, D. H. (1991). Goal setting and self-evaluation: A social cognitive perspective on self-regulation. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 7, pp. 85-113). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Schunk, D. H. (1994). Self-regulation of self-efficacy and attributions in academic settings. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schunk, D. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2000). Self-regulation and academic learning: Self-efficacy enhancing interventions. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 631-649). San Diego: Academic Press.

Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2002). The development of academic self-efficacy. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 15-32). San Diego: Academic Press.

70

Motivation

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.) (1994). Self-regulation of learning and performance. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schraw, G., Bruning, R. & Svoboda, C. (1995). Sources of situational interest. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27, 1-17.

Schraw, G. & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 23-52.

Sheets, R. H., & Hollins, E. R. (Eds.) (1999). Racial and ethnic identity in school practices: Aspects of human development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Shell, D.F., Colvin, C., & Bruning, R.H. (1995). Self-efficacy, attribution, and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement: Grade-level and achievement-level differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 386-398

Sigel, I. E., McGillicuddy-DeLisi, A. V., & Goodnow, J. J. (Eds.). (1992). Parental belief systems (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Silverman, W. K., La Greca, A. M., & Wasserstein, S. (1995). What do children worry about? Worries and their relations to anxiety. Child Development, 66, 671-686.

Simmons, R. G., & Blyth, D. A. (1987). Moving into adolescence: The impact of pubertal change and school context. Hawthorn, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Simpkins, S. D., Fredricks, J. A., Davis-Kean, P. E., & Eccles, J. S. (2004). Healthy Mind, Healthy Habits: The Influence of Activity Involvement in Middle Childhood In A. C. Huston & M. N. Ripke (Eds), Middle Childhood: Contexts of Development, New York: Cambridge University Press.

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

Skaalvik, E. M., & Bong, M. (2003). Self-concept and self-efficacy revisited: A few notable differences and important similarities. In Marsh, H. W., R. Craven, & D. M. McInerney (Eds.), International advances in self research (pp. 67-90). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Skaalvik, E.M. & Rankin, R.J. (1996, April). Self-concept and self-efficacy: Conceptual analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association in New York.

Skinner, E. A. (1990). Age differences in the dimensions of perceived control during middle childhood: Implications for developmental conceptualizations and research. Child Development, 61, 1882-1890.

Skinner, E. A. (1995). Perceived control, motivation, and Coping. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and

student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 571-581.Skinner, E. A., Chapman, M., & Baltes, P. B. (1988). Control, means-ends, and agency beliefs: A new

conceptualization and its measurement during childhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 117-133.

Skinner, E. A., Gembeck-Zimmer, M. J., & Connell, J. P. (1998). Individual differences and the development of perceived control. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development (Serial No. 254, Vol. 6, No.2-3, pp. 1-220).

Skinner, E. A., & Wellborn, J. G. (1994). Coping during childhood and adolescence: A motivational perspective. In D. Featherman, R. Lerner, & M. Perlmutter (Eds.), Life-span development and behavior (pp. 91-133). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Slaughter-Defoe, D. T., Nakagawa, K., Takanishi, R., & Johnson, D. J. (1990). Toward cultural/ecological perspectives on schooling and achievement in African- and Asian-American children. Child Development, 61, 363-383.

Slavin, R.E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60, 471-499.

Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning (2nd Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Smiley, P. A., & Dweck, C. S. (1994). Individual differences in achievement goals among young children. Child

Development, 65, 1723-1743.Spencer, M. B., Noll, E., Stoltzfus, J., & Harplani, V. (2001). Identify and school adjustment: Revising the

“Acting White” assumption. Educational Psychologist, 36, 31-44.Spencer, S. J., Steele, M. & Quinn, D. M. (1999), Stereotype threat and women's math performance. 

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4-28.

71

Motivation

Steele, C. M. (1992, April). Race and the schooling of black Americans. Atlantic Monthly, 269(4), 68-78.Steele, C. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American

Psychologist, 52, 613-629.Steele, C.M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African-Americans.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S., & Brown, B. (1992). Ethnic differences in adolescents achievements: An ecological

perspective. American Psychologist, 47, 723-729.Stevens, R. J., & Slavin, R. E. (1995). The cooperative elementary school: Effects on students' achievement,

attitudes, and social relations. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 321-351.Stevenson, D. L., & Baker, D. P. (1987). The family-school relation and the child's school performance. Child

Development, 58, 1348-1357.Stevenson, H. W., Chen, C., & Uttal, D. H. (1990). Beliefs and achievement: A study of black, white, and

Hispanic children. Child Development, 61, 508-523.Stipek, D. J., & Mac Iver, D. (1989). Developmental change in children's assessment of intellectual competence.

Child Development, 60, 521-538.Stipek, D. J., Recchia, S., & McClintic, S. M. (1992). Self-evaluation in young children. Monographs of the

Society for Research in Child Development, 57 (2, Serial No. 226).Suarez-Orozco, C. & Suarez-Orozco, M. (2001). Children of Immigration. Cambridge: Harvard University

Press.

Super, C. M. & Harkness, S. (2002). Culture structures the environment for development. Human Development, 45, 270-274.

Szalacha, L.A., Erkut, S., Garcia-Coll, C., Alarcon, O, Fields, J.P., & Ceder, I. (2003). Discrimination and Puerto Rican children’s and adolescents’ mental health. Cultural diversity and ethnic minority psychology, 9, 141-155.

Tatum, B. D. (1997). “Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?” and other conversations about race. New York: Basic Books.

Taylor, R. D., Casten, R., Flickinger, S., Roberts, D., & Fulmore, C. D. (1994). Explaining the school performance of African-American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 4, 21-44.

Teachman, J., Paasch, K., & Carver, K. (1997), Social capital and the generation of human capital, Social Forces, 75, 1-17.

Tenenbaum, H. R., & Leaper, C. (2003). Parent-child conversations about science: The socialization of gender inequities? Developmental Psychology, 39, 34-47. 

Thompson, M. S., Alexander, K. L., & Entwisle, D. R. (1988). Household composition, parental expectations, and school achievement. Social Forces, 67, 424-451.

Thorkildsen, T., & Nicholls, J. G. (1998). Fifth graders’ achievement orientations and beliefs: Individual and classroom differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 179-201.

Tobias, S. (1985). Test anxiety: Interference, deficient skills, and cognitive capacity. Educational Psychologist, 20, 135-142.

Tobias, S. (1994). Interest, prior knowledge, and learning. Review of Educational Research, 64, 37-54.Todt, E. (1990). Development of interest. In H. Hetzer (Ed.), Applied developmental psychology of children and

youth. Wiesbaden: Quelle & Meyer.

Triandis, H. C., & Suh, E. M. (2002). Cultural influences on personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 133-160.

Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202-248.

Urdan, T. C. (1997). Achievement goal theory: Past results, future directions. In P. R. Pintrich & M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 99-142). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Urdan, T. C. (Ed.) (1999). The role of context: Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 11). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Urdan, T., & Giancarlo, C. (2001). A comparison of motivational and critical thinking orientations across ethnic groups. In D. M. McInerney and S. V. Etten (Eds.), Research on sociocultural influences on motivation and learning, Volume 1 (pp. 37-60). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). The Condition of Education 2002 (NCES 2002-025), Section 1.

72

Motivation

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2003a). Projections of Education Statistics to 2013 (NCES 2004-013), Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2002.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2003b). Digest of Education Statistics, 2002 (NCES 2003-060), Chapter 2.

Valencia, R. R. (Ed.) (1991). Chicano school failure and success: Research and policy agendas for the 1990s. London: Falmer Press.

Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Brière, N. M., Senécal, C. B. & Vallières, E. F. (1993). On the assessment of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education: Evidence on the concurrent and construct validity of the Academic Motivation Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 159-172.

Vanfossen, B. E., Jones, J. D., & Spade, J. Z. (1987). Curriculum tracking and status maintenance. Sociology of Education, 60, 104-122.

Vasey, M. W., & Daliedon, E. L. (1994). Worry in children. In G. Davey & F. Tallis (Eds.), Worrying: Perspectives on theory, assessment, and treatment (pp. 1850-207). Chicester: Wiley.

Wade, S. E. (1992). How interest affects learning from text. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 255-277). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wade, S. E., Buxton, W. M. & Kelly, M. (1999). Using think-alouds to examine reader-text interest. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 194-216.

Wagner, B. M., & Phillips, D. A. (1992). Beyond beliefs: Parent and child behaviors and children's perceived academic competence. Child Development, 63, 1380-1391.

Watt, H. (2004). Development of adolescents’ self-perceptions, values, and task perceptions. Child Development, 75, 1556-1574.

Wehlage, G., Rutter, R., Smith, G., Lesko, N., & Fernandez, R. (1989). Reducing the risk: Schools as communities of support. Philadelphia: The Falmer Press.

Weiner, B., (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548-573.

Weiner, B. (1992). Human motivation: Metaphors, theories, and research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Weiner, B. (2004). Attribution theory revisited: Cultural plurality and theoretical unity. In D. M. McInerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Big theories revisited (Vol. 4: Sociocultural influences on motivation and learning, pp. 13-30). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Press.

Weinstein, R. S. (1989). Perception of classroom processes and student motivation: Children's views of self-fulfilling prophecies. In R. E. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (pp. 187-221). (Vol. 3). New York: Academic Press.

Weisz, J. P. (1984). Contingency judgments and achievement behavior: Deciding what is controllable and when to try. In J. G. Nicholls (Ed.), The development of achievement motivation (pp. 107-136). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Wentzel, K. R. (1989). Adolescent classroom grades, standards for performance, and academic achievement: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 131-142.

Wentzel, K. R. (1991a). Relations between social competence and academic achievement in early adolescence. Child Development, 62, 1066-1078.

Wentzel, K. R. (1991b). Social competence at school: Relation between social responsibility and academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 61, 1-24.

Wentzel, K. R. (1993). Does being good make the grade? Social behavior and academic competence in middle school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 357-364.

Wentzel, K. R. (1994). Relations of social goal pursuit to social acceptance, and perceived social support. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 173-182.

Wentzel, K. R. (1996). Social goals and social relationships as motivators of school adjustment. In J. Juvonen & K. R. Wentzel (Eds.), Social motivation: Understanding school adjustment. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wentzel, K. R. (1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle school: The role of parents, teachers, and peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 202-209.

Wentzel, K. (2002a). Are effective teachers like good parents? Teaching styles and student adjustment in early adolescence. Child Development, 73, 287-301.

73

Motivation

Wentzel, K. R. (2002b). The contribution of social goal setting to children’s school adjustment. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 222-246). San Diego: Academic Press.

White, R. H. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297-333.Wigfield. A. (1994). Expectancy - value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental

perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 49-78.Wigfield, A., & Asher, S.R. (1984). Social and motivational influences on reading. In P.D. Pearson, R. Barr,

M.L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research,(pp. 423-452). New York: Longman.

Wigfield, A., Battle, A., Keller, L., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). Sex differences in motivation, self-concept, career aspirations, and career choice: Implications for cognitive development. In A. McGillicuddy-DelLisi & R. DeLisi (Eds.), Biology, society, and behavior: The development of sex differences in cognition (pp. 93-124). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.

Wigfield, A., Byrnes, J. B., & Eccles, J. S. (in press). Adolescent development. In P. A. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd edition). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1989). Test anxiety in elementary and secondary school students. Educational Psychologist, 24, 159-183.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12, 265-310.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy - value theory of motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002a). Children's motivation during the middle school years. In J. Aronson (Ed.), Improving academic achievement: Contributions of social psychology. San Diego: Academic Press.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002b). The development of competence beliefs and values from childhood through adolescence. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 92-120). San Diego: Academic Press.

Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Mac Iver, D., Reuman, D., & Midgley, C. (1991). Transitions at early adolescence: Changes in children's domain-specific self-perceptions and general self-esteem across the transition to junior high school. Developmental Psychology, 27, 552-565.

Wigfield, A., Eccles, J.S., & Pintrich, P.R. (1996). Development between the ages of eleven and twenty-five. In D.C. Berliner and R.C. Calfee (Eds.), The Handbook of Educational Psychology, New York: Macmillan Publishing.

Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Yoon, K. S., Harold, R. D., Arbreton, A., Freedman-Doan, C., Blumenfeld, P. C. (1997). Changes in children's competence beliefs and subjective task values across the elementary school years: A three-year study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 451-469.

Wigfield, A., & Meece, J. (1988). Math anxiety in elementary and secondary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 210-216.

Wigfield, A., & Tonks, S. (2004). The development of motivation for reading. In J. T. Guthrie, A. Wigfield, & K. C. Perencevich (Eds.). Motivating reading comprehension: Concept Oriented Reading Instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Winne, P. H., & Marx, R. W. (1989). A cognitive-process analysis of motivation within classroom tasks. In C. Ames & R. E. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 3, pp. 223-257). San Diego: Academic Press.

Winston, C., Eccles, J. S., Senior, A. M., & Vida, M. (1997). The utility of an expectancy/value model of achievement for understanding academic performance and self-esteem in African-American and European-American adolescents. Zeitschrift Fur Padagogische Psychologie (German Journal of Educational Psychology), 11, 177-186.

Wolters, C. A. (2003). Regulation of motivation: Evaluating an underemphasized aspect of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 189-206.

Wong, C.A., Eccles, J.S., & Sameroff, A.J. (2003). The influence of ethnic discrimination and ethnic identification on African-Americans adolescents’ school and socioemotional adjustment. Journal of Personality, 71, 1197-1232.

Yee, D. K., & Flanagan, C. (1985). Family environments and self -consciousness in early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 5, 59-68.

Yeung, W.J., Linver, M.R., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2002). How money matters for young children’s development: Parental investment and family processes. Child Development, 73, 1861-1879.

74

Motivation

Yoon, K. S., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1993 April). Causal relations between mothers' and children's beliefs about math ability: A structural equation model. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

Zeidner, M. (1998). Test anxiety: The state of the art. New York: Plenum Press.Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology,

81, 329-339.Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R.

Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). San Diego: Academic Press.Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitasantas, A. (1999). Acquiring writing revision skill: Shifting from process to outcome

self-regulatory goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 241-250.Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade,

sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 51-59.

75

Motivation

Table 1Recommendations for Restructuring Middle Grades Schools

Recommendations from the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development1. Turn large schools into smaller learning communities2. All students should receive a common core of high-level knowledge3. All students should be given the opportunity to succeed4. Teachers and school administrators should have decision-making authority5. Middle grades teachers should receive special preparation for working with early

adolescents6. Early adolescents’ fitness and health should be a strong focus of middle school education7. Families should be involved in middle schools8. School – community connections need to be establishedRecommendations from the National Middle School Association1. Middle school educators should be knowledgeable about young adolescents2. The middle school curriculum should be responsive to the needs of young adolescents3. There should be a range of organizational arrangements in middle schools4. Instructional strategies should be varied5. There should be full exploratory programs in different schools6. Comprehensive advising and counseling should be provided for all students7. All students should make continual progress8. Evaluation procedures should be compatible with the nature of young adolescents9. Teachers should have time for cooperative planning10. Each middle school should have a positive school climate

76

Motivation

Figure CaptionsFigure 1. Eccles and colleagues’ motivational model of achievement performance and choice.Figure 2. Model of parental influences on children’s motivation and achievement.

77

Motivation

Achievement-Related Choices and performance

78

Cultural Milieu 1. Gender role stereotypes 2. Cultural stereotypes of subject matter and occupational characteristics

Socializers' Beliefs and Behaviors

Differential Aptitudes of Child

Previous Achievement-Related

Experiences

Child's Perception of... 1. Socializer's beliefs, expectations, and attitudes 2. Gender roles 3. Activity stereotypes

Child's Interpretations of Experience

1. Causal attributions 2. Locus of control

Child's Goals and General Self-Schemata 1. Self-schemata 2. Short-term goals 3. Long-term goals 4. Ideal self 5. Self-concept of one's abilities 6. Perceptions of task demands

Child's Affective Memories

Expectation of Success

Subjective Task Value

1. Incentive and attainment value 2. Utility value 3. Cost