Perceived Instrumentality and Academics: The Link to Task Valuing.

We examined the theoretical claim that personally valued future goals serve to increase the incentive value of proximal tasks when those proximal tasks are perceived as instrumental to attainment of the future goals. The relationships between 180 college students' perceptions of the incentive value of course work and their beliefs that course performance was instrumental was examined with a 51-item survey that measured learning goals, performance goals, perceived instrumentality, intrinsic valuing and extrinsic valuing. Consistent with the theoretical claim, regression analyses indicated that perceived instrumentality was a significant predictor of both intrinsic and extrinsic valuing, even when controlling for learning and performance goals. Also consistent with theory, performance goals were found to have no reliable relationship to perceived instrumentality. These findings support the important role played by students' perceptions of the connection between academic tasks and their valued future goals, and suggest that facilitating perceptions of the instrumentality of school work may be critical to fostering increased proximal motivation for academics.

Key words: achievement motivation: achievement goals; task valuing; perceived instrumentality

The purpose of the present study was to determine whether students' perceptions of the incentive value of course work were related to their beliefs that course performance was instrumental to the attainment of personally valued future goals. The rationale behind this study lies in an extension of the social cognitive perspective of self-regulation proposed by Bandura (1986, 1991). Bandura (1986) has characterized self-regulation as involving three component processes: (a) self-observation or behavioral monitoring, (b) self-evaluation of progress or self-judgment, and (c) self-reaction, including both affective and tangible self-initiated consequences. The operation of each of these components occurs in response to an individual's commitment to pursue a valued outcome. The anticipated outcome is hypothesized to provide an incentive for task initiation and engagement in self-regulation. It is this theoretical claim that is the focus of our investigation.

In the social cognitive account of self-regulation the ideal goals are characterized as proximal or relatively close at hand (Bandura, 1986; Locke & Latham, 1990). Yet other theorists have placed personally valued, distant (future) goals at the center of their thinking about motivation and action (Markus & Nurius, 1986; Nuttin, 1984, 1985; Raynor & Entin, 1982). Like them, we believe future goals serve at least two important functions which tend to be overlooked in much of the current research on motivation: (1) future goals provide the impetus for the formation of systems of proximal subgoals; and (2) future goals represent important incentives for present action, but only when current tasks are perceived as instrumental to attainment of those future goals.

The future goals to which we refer are the self-relevant, self-defining goals that govern important aspects of peoples lives. These goals include, but are not limited to, important personal aspirations such as earning specific educational degrees, striving for a career, developing intimate relationships, making a contribution to society, and becoming an educated person (Cantor & Kihlstrom, 1987; Nurmi, 1991). They are future-oriented in that successful performance on the current task will not, in itself, produce the desired consequence. In fact some goals, such as becoming educated or making a contribution to society, may have open ended futures in which the ultimate goal is never fully reached (Emmons, 1989). Others have referred to such future-oriented goals as life tasks (Cantor & Kihlstrom, 1987), personal strivings (Emmons, 1989), current concerns (Klinger, 1977), personal projects (Little, 1987), possible selves (Markus & Nurius, 1986), future consequences (Miller, Greene, Montalvo, Ravindran, & Nichols, 1996); and behavioral projects (Nuttin, 1985).

Although future goals have incentive value, they are typically viewed as "too far off, or too general, to shepherd specific actions in immediate situations that present many uncertainties and complexities. People have to create for themselves proximal guides and self-motivators for courses of action that lead to distal attainments" (Bandura, 1986; p. 336). Thus, the initial commitment to a valued distant goal is the catalyst for the process of developing proximal goals (Nurmi, 1991; Nuttin, 1984). When people commit themselves to personally valued future goals, they are in a position to purposefully generate a coherent framework or system of proximal subgoals to guide action toward the attainment of those valued future goals.

The importance of a system of proximal subgoals to effective self-regulation of behavior has been consistently supported by empirical research (see Bandura [1986] and Locke & Latham [1990] for reviews). However, the importance of proximal goals should not overshadow the critical role played by the future goals to which they are anchored. As Bandura (1986) has indicated, "personal development is best served by combining distal aspirations with proximal self-guidance" (p. 476). Having a context of personally valued future goals in which proximal subgoals are imbedded not only makes pursuit of the future goal possible and attainment feasible, it gives meaning to our proximal behavior. Without future goals to guide the generation of proximal goal systems, human behavior would be guided only by immediate needs and immediate consequences. It is the higher order self-regulation engendered by the pursuit of distant, personally valued goals which gives the proximal tasks we engage in meaning beyond their immediate positive or negative consequences (Markus & Nurius, 1986).

When a proximal goal is perceived to be instrumental to future goal attainment, engagement in the proximal task is supported by both the incentive value of the anticipated immediate outcomes following accomplishment of the proximal goal (e.g., praise, recognition) and those anticipated for the ultimate attainment of the future goal, which is now a step closer to fruition. In addition to these outcome-related incentives, there are also the dual incentives of anticipated self-reactions associated with accomplishing the proximal goal itself and the self-reactions associated with the accomplishing a step on the path to a personally valued distal goal (Nuttin, 1984; Raynor and Entin, 1982). We believe both of these future goal-related incentives (outcome and self-reactive) add to the overall incentive value of proximal tasks.

Theoretical discussions of the incentive value of tasks typically emphasize their extrinsic and intrinsic nature (e.g., Eccles [Parsons], et al., 1983; Wigfield, 1994). Extrinsic value is derived from the rewards, recognition and potential utility of task performance, not from the performance itself. Intrinsic value refers to the satisfaction or enjoyment individuals experience from task engagement (Csikszentmilahlyi & Nakamura, 1989; Deci & Ryan, 1985). We believe both the perceived extrinsic and intrinsic value associated with task performance are related to future goals and are manifested when the current task is perceived as instrumental to attaining personally valued future goals.

The extrinsic incentive value of a task, particularly its utility value, is clearly tied to the future goals one holds (Eccles et al., 1983). We believe that in school, it is students' future goals and subgoals that set the stage for their perceptions of the utility value of the subject matter content being studied and the utility value of their performance (e.g., grades). Students who perceive school performance as instrumental to reaching valued future goals are more likely to perceive school content as having extrinsic utility value. In fact, the concepts of perceived instrumentality and task utility value are nearly synonymous. Tasks cannot have utility value if they are not perceived as instrumental and, by definition, tasks perceived as instrumental have utility value. However, utility value only characterizes one dimension of the incentive value resulting from perceived instrumentality. Another dimension is the task's anticipated intrinsic value.

Our belief that the intrinsic value of a task is at least in part dependent on perceptions of instrumentality stems from two sources. Ryan and his colleagues (e.g., Ryan & Stiller, 1991; Ryan, Connell, & Deci, 1985; Ryan, Connell, & Grolnick, 1992) draw a distinction between intrinsically and extrinsically regulated behavior based on differences in perceived autonomy and the resulting affective reactions. In addition, they recognize that extrinsically regulated behaviors may vary among themselves along a continuum of autonomy as well. The form of extrinsic regulation that is most autonomous, and therefore most closely related to intrinsic regulation, is regulation by identification. Regulation by identification is the result of the individual internalizing formerly extrinsic goals. Ryan and colleagues maintain that it is only when students have made a commitment to personally valued goals (i.e., their behavior is regulated by identification) that they will experience the positive affective reactions associated with more intrinsically motivated behavior, such as, enjoyment and satisfaction. When students' behaviors are regulated by less autonomous extrinsic factors (e.g., coerced by rewards and punishments, or guilt) they are unlikely to experience these intrinsic reactions. We view students whose academic behaviors are regulated by identification, to be students who perceive their academic behavior to be instrumental to attaining personally valued future goals. Thus, students who perceive their school work to be instrumental to reaching their future goals should also be more likely to experience intrinsic motivation in their classes.

Additionally, Csikszentmihalyi's flow theory (1975) suggests that the intrinsically rewarding experience of flow results from engagement in optimally challenging tasks, ones whose difficulty matches the individual's level of competence. However, Csikszentmihalyi and Larson's (1984) research on the flow experiences of adolescents indicates that individuals must also value the task if the intrinsic rewards of tackling challenge are going to occur. We see perceived instrumentality as providing the value connection between current task performance and attainment of personally valued goals.

Our claim regarding the importance of perceived instrumentality to experiencing intrinsic motivation might be challenged by those who view more proximal achievement goals as most central to proximal motivation. Previous research (e.g., Duda & Nicholls, 1992; Meece et al., 1988; Miller et al., 1993; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991) has shown that learning goals (also referred to as mastery goals or task-related goals) are positively related to intrinsic motivation. The rationale for this relationship is straightforward: individuals with learning goals pursue tasks of moderate challenge for the purpose of increasing competence. They experience satisfaction (intrinsic reward) from mastering these challenging intellectual tasks (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Nicholls, 1989). Thus, learning goals and the experiencing of intrinsic satisfaction following success seem to go hand-in-hand. We wonder whether both perceived instrumentality and learning goals will account for significant and unique portions of variance in intrinsic valuing, or whether only one of these variables will account of the bulk of the variance in intrinsic valuing.

Additionally, measures of performance goals or ego-related goals have often been cast as extrinsic in nature (e.g., Meece et al., 1988; Nicholls, 1989; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991) and have included a range of items tapping extrinsic factors. These extrinsic factors include seeking to demonstrate competence or to avoid demonstrating incompetence relative to others (performance or ego-related goals), wanting to please others (social goals), and wanting to earn good grades. Although such goals are clearly extrinsic in nature, that is, they do not derive their motivating quality from task performance itself, these extrinsic goals do not, on the surface, appear to be conceptually related to the construct of extrinsic utility value we are addressing. These goals may, however, be related to perceptions of task instrumentality via the following logic: tasks that are perceived to be instrumental to attaining personally valued future goals are by definition perceived as personally important. The perceived personal importance of these proximal tasks may make performance on these tasks more salient for competence-related goals such as performance goals or ego-related goals. For this reason we have included a measure of competence-related performance goals in this study.

Based on this backdrop we asked the following research questions: (1) Are students' perceived instrumentality scores related to their intrinsic and extrinsic valuing of academic tasks? (2) Are students' learning goal scores related to intrinsic and extrinsic valuing of academic tasks? (3) Are students' performance goal scores related to intrinsic and extrinsic valuing of academic tasks? (4) Do learning and performance goal scores and perceived instrumentality scores account for unique amounts of variance in intrinsic valuing scores? (4) Do learning and performance goal scores and perceived instrumentality scores account for unique amounts of variance in extrinsic valuing scores?

Method

Participants. Participants were 180 students (51 males, 129 females) enrolled in an undergraduate educational psychology class required for the teacher education program at a major midwestern university. All of the students were in the teacher education program and represented majors in elementary education (n=58), secondary education in areas such as math and science (n=80), and other certification areas, such as early childhood and music (n=35). Seven students failed to indicate their majors. Data were collected over two consecutive semesters, from three different sections of the class each semester.

Instruments. Students completed a 51-item survey labeled the "Approaches to Learning Survey," which was based on items used in previous research to measure achievement goals, perceived instrumentality, valuing and cognitive engagement (Brickman, Miller, & Roedel, 1997; Greene & Miller, 1996; Miller et al., 1996). Five subscales (24 items) from this instrument were used in the current study; however, to ensure that we had a defensible factor structure, we conducted a Principal Axis factor analysis with an oblique rotation because several of the subscales should be correlated. As a result of this analysis, four items were dropped for one of the following reasons: the item loaded on more than one factor (criterion of .30 or greater); the item loaded on a factor containing only one other item; or the item loaded on a factor other than the one intended. A second factor analysis with oblique rotation was performed, the results of which revealed five factors, each corresponding to the constructs we intended to measure with the five subscales. Only one item among these factors cross-loaded substantially on more than one factor, the last learning goal item. This item had its strongest factor loading (-.32) on the learning goal factor, but had loadings of -.21 and -.28 on perceived instrumentality and intrinsic valuing respectively. This item was retained so that the learning goal subscale would have three items. The item subscale correlation was .67, and its deletion from the subscale would have reduced the subscale's internal consistency reliability. The factor loadings are reported in Table 1.

Table 1 Subscale Means, Standard Deviations, Coefficient Alpha Reliabilities, and Item Factor Loadings

                                                            Factor
Subscale Name (Mean/Standard Deviation/Alpha)               Loading

Learning Goal (M=3.86/SD=.73/[Alpha]=.84)

I do the work assigned in this class because I like to
  understand the material I study.                           -.64
I do the work assigned in this class because I want to
  improve my understanding of the material.                  -.61
I do the work assigned in this class because I want to
  learn new things.                                          -.32

Performance Goal (M=2.18/SD=.82/[Alpha]=.90):

I do the work assigned in this class because I don't
  want others to think I'm not smart.                         .85
I do the work assigned in this class because I want look
  smart to my friends.                                        .81
I do the work assigned in this class because 1 don't want
  to look foolish or stupid to my friends, family or
  teachers.                                                   .79
I do the work assigned in this class because I don't
  want to be embarrassed about not being able to do
  the work.                                                   .76
I do the work assigned in this class because I don't
  want to be the only one who cannot do the work well.        .74
I do the work assigned in this class because I can
  show people that I am smart.                                .65

Perceived Instrumentality (M=3.93/SD=.74/[Alpha]=.91):

I do the work assigned in this class because my
  achievement plays a role in reaching my future goals.       .90
I do the work assigned in this class because my
  achievement is important for attaining my dreams.           .75
I do the work assigned in this class because
  understanding this content is important for becoming
  the person  I want to be.                                   .74
I do the work assigned in this class because learning
  the content plays a role in reaching my future goals.       .63
I do the work assigned in this class because learning
  this material is important for attaining my dreams.         .50

Intrinsic Valuing (M=3.40/SD=.80/[Alpha]=.84):

Learning this material is enjoyable.                          .88
I find learning this subject matter personally
  satisfying.                                                 .80
The concepts and principles taught in this course are
  interesting.                                                .57

Extrinsic Valuing (M=4.13/SD=.71/[Alpha]=.89):

Learning this material is important because of its
  future value.                                               .97
Mastering the concepts and principles taught in this
  class is of value because they will help me in the
  future.                                                     .79

Being able to use the ideas reflected in the assignments
  and projects in this course will be of value to me in
  the future.                                                 .57

There were two goals subscales: learning goals (3 items), and performance goals (2 items measuring approach and 4 items measuring avoidance aspects). Additionally, there was a subscale measuring perceived instrumentality (5 items) and two subscales measuring valuing: intrinsic valuing (3 items) and extrinsic valuing (3 items). All items were measured on a five-point Likert-Type scale anchored with "strongly disagree" and "strongly agree." The item stems and the subscale reliabilities can be seen in Table 1.

Although our measures of learning and performance goals are probably familiar, it is important for us to note the conceptual distinctions underlying the particular subscales we used to measure perceived instrumentality and valuing. Perceived instrumentality is a goal-related variable that represents the extent to which individuals perceive task performance as instrumental to the attainment of a valued future goal. Thus, our perceived instrumentality subscale is not a measure of the future goal per se, rather it is a measure of the participant's perceptions of the extent to which class performance or achievement is a step along a path to a valued future goal. This subscale has been used previously (Brickman, Miller, & Roedel, 1997; Miller et al., 1996) and we found evidence of acceptable internal consistency and construct validity.

The constructs of intrinsic and extrinsic valuing both deal with perceptions of the underlying incentive value of activities or objects. Things having intrinsic value derive their value from the enjoyment and satisfaction of task performance (Csikszentmihalyi & Nakamura, 1989; Deci & Ryan, 1985). Our intrinsic valuing subscale focused on participants' level of enjoyment, satisfaction and interest in learning course content. Activities or objects that are extrinsically valued derive their value from consequences outside of task performance such as rewards, recognition or potential utility, not from the performance of the task itself (Csikszentmihalyi & Nakamura, 1989; Deci & Ryan, 1985). Our extrinsic valuing subscale measured the extent to which the subject matter content presented in the target class and one's performance in that class were perceived to have future utility for the participants. We recognize this is a restricted sampling of possible extrinsic sources of value; however, we believe that the perceived instrumentality of academic performance has its primary influence on the extrinsic-utility value of school work, not on the other types of extrinsic value. Although other sources of extrinsic value may influence proximal motivation, we chose to develop the subscale to more clearly test the predicted relationship between instrumentality and extrinsic valuing.

Although the extrinsic valuing subscale and the perceived instrumentality subscale are conceptually related (as described in the introduction), we believe they tap somewhat different points in a contingent relationship. The valuing items explicitly address issues of worth or value, making value the focus of the subscale. The perceived instrumentality items, on the other hand, focus on the perceived connection between academic performance and attainment of future goals. The value dimension is not explicit in the perceived instrumentality items, but is implied; that is, it is unlikely that one would commit to a future goal that was not personally valued. Our belief that the perceived instrumentality and extrinsic valuing subscales represented conceptually distinct subscales was supported by the factor analysis on which the items for these subscales loaded on factors separate from each other and the other goal and valuing subscales used in this study (see Table 1 for the factor loadings).

Procedure. Students attending class on the day data were collected were informed of the nature of the study and were asked to volunteer to participate. Students who agreed, signed the consent forms and were given the "Approaches to Learning Survey." It took approximately 15 minutes for participants to complete the survey.

Results

Descriptive Statistics. Table 1 summarizes the means and standard deviations for each subscale. Table 2 reports the zero-order correlations among the variables in this study. As expected, learning goal and instrumentality scores were positively correlated with scores on intrinsic and extrinsic valuing, and with each other. Also as expected, performance goals and learning goals were not significantly correlated with each other. Interestingly, performance goals were not correlated with perceived instrumentality, but had significant, although weak, negative correlations with both intrinsic and extrinsic valuing scores. Finally, intrinsic and extrinsic valuing scores were moderately and positively correlated with each other. To further tease out the interplay of variances among the goal-related variables and the valuing variables we conducted a series of multiple regression analyses which are reported next.

Table 2 Subscale Intercorrelations

                    Perf.                     Intrinsic   Extrinsic
Subscale            Goal    Instrumentality    Valuing     Valuing

Learning Goal       -.04        .72(**)        .65(**)     .65(**)
Perf. Goal            --       -.04           -.15(*)     -.16(*)
Instrumentality                  --            .61(**)     .74(**)
Intrinsic valuing                               --         .59(**)

(*) p < .05

(**) p < .005

Regression Analyses. In the first regression analysis learning goals, performance goals, and perceived instrumentality were simultaneously entered as predictors of intrinsic valuing. The results are reported in Table 3. Both instrumentality scores and learning goals accounted for significant and unique amounts of variance in intrinsic valuing scores, with learning goals accounting for the greater share of variance in intrinsic valuing (18% and 9% respectively). Performance goals resulted in a weaker yet statistically significant negative contribution (1%). Overall this combination of variables accounted for 48 percent of the variance in intrinsic valuing scores.

Table 3 Simultaneous Entry Regression Analyses of Valuing on Goals and Perceived Instrumentality

Outcome Variable ([R.sup.2])
  Predictor Variable                  Beta       t

Intrinsic Valuing ([R.sup.2] = .48)
  Learning Goal                        .43    5.47(**)
  Performance Goal                    -.12   -2.14(*)
  Instrumentality                      .30    3.83(**)
Extrinsic Valuing ([R.sup.2] = .60)
  Learning Goal                        .23    3.39(**)
  Performance Goal                    -.13   -2.74(*)
  Instrumentality                      .57    8.38(**)

(*) p < .01

(**) p < .001

The second regression analysis simultaneously entered learning goals, performance goals, and perceived instrumentality as predictors of extrinsic valuing. The results are reported in Table 3. Again, both instrumentality scores and learning goals accounted for significant and unique amounts of variance in extrinsic valuing scores; however, as we expected, in this case instrumentality scores accounted for the greater share of variance (32.5% and 5% respectively). Performance goals accounted for a small, negative, but statistically significant amount of variance in extrinsic valuing (1%). Overall this combination of variables accounted for 60 percent of the variance in extrinsic valuing scores.

Discussion

The results of both the correlation and regression analyses indicated that perceived instrumentality was significantly related to both intrinsic and extrinsic valuing, even when controlling for learning and performance goals. The relationship between instrumentality and valuing scores is consistent with the theoretical claim that personally valued future goals serve to increase the incentive value of proximal tasks, if those proximal tasks are perceived as instrumental to attainment of the future goals (Nuttin, 1984, 1985; Raynor & Entin, 1982).

This is most strikingly seen in the case of extrinsic valuing scores where perceived instrumentality scores accounted for over 32 percent of the variance in extrinsic valuing scores when controlling for variations in learning goal scores. Learning goals accounted for little of the variance in extrinsic valuing scores (5%) when controlling for variations in perceived instrumentality.

Although these data support the claimed importance of perceived instrumentality, we are sensitive to the conceptual dependency of these two constructs. Perceiving a task as having extrinsic utility value, which is what we measured, implies that it is perceived as instrumental in the future. Nevertheless, we believe these subscales measured different things, as supported by the factor analysis. The extrinsic valuing items emphasized the value of concepts and ideas in the future rather than the present. The perceived instrumentality items emphasized that current course performance and learning of course content were important to reaching personally relevant future goals. This distinction is seen in the research cited by Steinberg, Dornbusch, and Brown (1992) in which students had declarative knowledge that school learning and school performance were of value in the future; however, this knowledge often failed to impact their achievement-related behavior. We suspect such students do not hold personally relevant future goals that would enable them to see school achievement as instrumental to their futures. It is through its influence on task incentive value that instrumentality makes salient the relevancy of the current task.

Of even greater interest were the findings related to intrinsic valuing. As predicted by achievement goal theories (e.g., Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Nicholls, 1989), learning goal scores were positively related to intrinsic valuing scores. Thus individuals interested in increasing competence and knowledge, tended to experience enjoyment and satisfaction in their learning. However, as we predicted, experiencing enjoyment and satisfaction from school tasks was also related to perceiving those school tasks as instrumental to personally valued future goals, despite the substantial amount of shared variance (r = .72) between learning goals and perceived instrumentality. This finding is consistent with the work of intrinsic motivation theorists (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1984; Ryan, Connell, & Deci, 1985; Ryan, Connell & Grolnick, 1992), and with future goal theorists (e.g., Nuttin, 1984, 1985; Raynor & Entin, 1982). Although we cannot draw causal conclusions from these data, they are consistent with the position that the experiencing of intrinsic satisfaction depends in part on perceiving the activity as instrumental to attaining personally valued future goals.

There are several limitations to the present study that should be mentioned. The participants in this study were all preservice teachers who had committed to a career in teaching and were asked to respond to our instruments in the context of a course that addressed their career goals. Future research should replicate these findings with students from more diverse disciplines, studying different contents. Additionally, the measure of extrinsic valuing used in the present study was restricted to the utility value of the content presented in the class and the skills students were learning. Future research should include a broader array of possible extrinsic incentives for learning and determine, what, if any relationship they have to perceived instrumentality.

Finally, our findings seem to have implications for researchers interested in fostering student achievement motivation. Motivational interventions which address only proximal goals, may fail to increase motivation to any substantial degree because they leave an important dimension of motivation untapped - the connection to valued future goals. Past research (e.g., Brickman, Miller & Roedel, 1997; DeVolder & Lens, 1982; Miller et al., 1996; Raynor & Entin, 1982) has shown that perceptions of instrumentality are related to cognitive engagement and achievement. If students do not perceive current academic activities as instrumental to attaining personally relevant future goals, we question whether those activities will have sufficient incentive value to foster the level of student cognitive engagement necessary to produce meaningful learning. Based on our findings, we believe subsequent research should examine interventions that not only help create learning oriented environments (e.g., Ames, 1992; Maehr & Midgley, 1991), but also help students clarify realistic future goals and the paths needed to reach them. Such an intervention would have students identify self-relevant future goals and develop self-regulatory skills needed to construct a path to those future goals. By doing so we believe students will be more likely to perceive school learning as instrumental to their personal futures, thus increasing the incentive value for engaging in school-related work.

References

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

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

Bandura, A. (1991). Self-regulation of motivation through anticipatory and self-reactive mechanisms. In R. Dienstbier (ed.), Perspectives on motivation: Nebraska symposium on motivation. 1990 (vol. 38, pp. 69-164). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Brickman, S., Miller, R., and Roedel, T. (1997, March). Goal Valuing and Future Consequences as Predictors of Cognitive Engagement. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Ill.

Cantor. N., and Kihlstrom, J.F. (1987). Personality and social intelligence. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1984). Being adolescent. New York: Basic.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Nakamura, J. (1989). The dynamics of intrinsic motivation: a study of adolescents. In C. Ames and R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (volume 3, pp. 45-71). Orlando, Fl: Academic Press.

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

DeVolder, M.L., & Lens, W. (1982). Academic achievement and future time perspective as a cognitive-motivational concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 566-571.

Duda, J.L., & Nicholls, J.G. (1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in school-work and sport. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 290-299.

Dweck, C. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.

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

Eccles (Parsons), J., Adler, T.E., Futterman, R., Goff, S.B., Kaczala, C.M., Meece, J.L., & Midgley, C. (1983). In J.T. Spence (ed.), Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological approaches. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.

Emmons, R.A. (1989). The personal striving approach to personality. In L.A. Pervin (Ed.). Goal concepts in personality and social psychology (pp. 87-126). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Greene, B.A., & Miller, R.B. (1996). Influences on course performance: Goals, perceived ability, and self-regulation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 181-192.

Klinger, E. (1977). Meaning & void: Inner experience and the incentives in people's lives. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Little, B.R. (1987). Personal projects and fuzzy selves: Aspects of self-identity in adolescence. In T. Honess and K. Yardley (Eds.), Self and identity: Perspectives across the lifespan (pp. 230-245). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Maehr, M.L., & Midgley. C. (1991). Enhancing student motivation: A schoolwide approach. Educational Psychologist, 26, 399-427.

Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954-969.

Meece, J.L., Blumenfeld, P.C., & Hoyle, R.H. (1988). Students' goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514-523.

Miller, R.B., Behrens, J.T., Greene, B.A., & Newman, D. (1993). Goals and perceived ability: Impact on student valuing, self-regulation and persistence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 2-14.

Miller, R.B., Greene, B.A., Montalvo, G. P., Ravindran, B., & Nicholls, J.D. (1996). Engagement in academic work: The role of learning goals, future consequences, pleasing others, and perceived ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 388-422.

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

Nurmi, J. E. (1991). How do adolescents see their future? A review of the development of future orientation and planning. Developmental Review, 11, 1-59.

Nuttin, J. (1984). Motivation, planning, and action: A relational theory of behavior dynamics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Nuttin, J. (1985). Future time perspective and motivation: Theory and research method. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pintrich, P.R., & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the college classroom. In M.L. Maehr and P.R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, vol. 7 (pp. 371-401). Greenwich. CT: JAI Press.

Raynor, (1974). Relationship between achievement-related motives, future orientation, and academic performance. In J.W. Atkinson and J.O. Raynor (eds.), Motivation and achievement (pp. 173-180). New York: V.H. Winston & Sons.

Raynor, J.O., & Entin, E.E. (1982). Theory and research on future orientation and achievement motivation. In J.O. Raynor and E.E. Entin (Eds.), Motivation, career striving, and aging. New York: Hemisphere Publishing (Chapter 2, pp. 13-82).

Ryan, R.M., & Stiller, J. (1991). The social contexts of internalization: Parent and teacher influences on autonomy, motivation, and learning. In M.L. Maehr and P.R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, vol. 7 (pp. 115-149). Greenwich. CT: JAI 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 and R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education, volume 2: The classroom milieu. Orlando. Fl: Academic Press.

Ryan, R.M., Connell, J.P., & Grolnick, W.S. (1992). When achievement is not intrinsically motivated: A theory of internalization and self-regulation in school. In A.K. Boggiano and T.S. Pittman (eds.), Achievement and motivation: A social-developmental perspective (pp. 167-188). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S.M., & Brown, B.B. (1992). Ethnic differences in adolescent achievement: An ecological perspective. American Psychologist, 47, 723-729.

Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 49-78.

Raymond B. Miller, Teresa K. DeBacker, Barbara A. Greene, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Oklahoma.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Raymond B. Miller, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Oklahoma, Collings Hall, Norman, OK 73019-2041. Email: [e-mail].