Engagement in Academic Work: The Role of Learning Goals, Future Consequences, Pleasing Others, and Perceived Ability

CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 21, 388–422 (1996)
ARTICLE NO. 0028
Engagement in Academic Work: The Role of Learning

Goals, Future Consequences, Pleasing Others,
and Perceived Ability1
RAYMOND B. MILLER, BARBARA A. GREENE, GREGORY P. MONTALVO,
BHUVANESWARI RAVINDRAN, AND JOE D. NICHOLS2
Department of Educational Psychology, University of Oklahoma
Engagement in academic work was viewed from a multiple goals perspective. Two
studies were conducted in which high school math students completed an instrument
measuring five goals students might have for doing academic work (learning goals,
performance goals, obtaining future consequences, pleasing the teacher, and pleasing
the family), perceived math ability, self-regulatory activities, strategies (deep or shallow)
used when studying for math, and the amount of effort and persistence expended on
the class. Factor analysis indicated that the five goals scales and the perceived ability
scale represented unique factors. The correlations among the variables revealed theoreti-
cally consistent interrelationships. Multiple regression analyses indicated that various
goals (e.g., learning goals, obtaining future consequences, and pleasing the teacher),
perceived ability, and some interactions accounted for significant amounts of variance
in the task engagement measures (self-regulation, strategy use, effort, and persistence)
and achievement. Results are discussed in relation to current theory and their practical
implications. q 1996 Academic Press, Inc.
Recent theories of academic achievement motivation have focused on the

underlying purposes or goals3 individuals have for their achievement efforts
(e.g., Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Nicholls, 1989). These theories maintain that
the purposes or goals in achievement settings revolve around the pursuit of
competence. Differences in motivation among individuals is thought to result
from differences in the frames of reference used to evaluate competence.
Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Raymond B. Miller, Department of

Educational Psychology, University of Oklahoma, Collings Hall, Norman, OK 73019-2041.
E-mail: rmiller@ou.edu.
1
The data reported herein were previously presented at the 1994 and 1995 annual meetings
of the American Educational Research Association.
2
Joe D. Nichols is now at the Department of Educational Psychology, Indiana University–
Purdue University, Fort Wayne.
3
The term goal is used in two different ways in the study of motivation. In one case goals
represent the performance standards or targets toward which individuals strive. This is the sense
of goals reflected in goal-setting theories (e.g., Locke & Latham, 1990) and self-regulation
theories (e.g., Bandura, 1986). In the other case goals represent the valued outcomes or purposes
for engaging in achievement activities. This is the sense of goals reflected in goal-orientation
theories (e.g., Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Nicholls, 1989) and is the sense we use in this paper.
388
0361-476X/96 $18.00
Copyright q 1996 by Academic Press, Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

ENGAGEMENT IN ACADEMIC WORK 389
Two frames of reference for evaluating competence have been proposed: (a)
learning goals (also called task-oriented goals and mastery goals) which use
improvement of skill or knowledge as the evaluative criterion, and (b) perfor-
mance goals (also called ego-oriented goals) which use relative standing
among others as the evaluative criterion. Given the importance of competence
judgements in our culture, there can be little doubt that these two factors are
major determinants of academic motivation; however, like others (e.g., Ford,
1992; Maehr, 1984; Urdan & Maehr, 1995; Wentzel, 1989), we believe that
student engagement in academic tasks is not due solely to the pursuit of
competence. Rather, student engagement in academic tasks is a function of
multiple incentives or goals which include but are not limited to the pursuit
of competence. The research reported here attempted to determine the extent
to which goals other than those involving pursuit of competence contribute
uniquely to the explanation of variance in cognitive engagement and course
achievement among high school students enrolled in mathematics classes.
Of particular interest was whether social and future-oriented extrinsic goals
expanded our understanding of academic motivation beyond that provided
by goals related to the pursuit of competence.
Previous research on student achievement goals (e.g., Ames & Archer,
1988; Meece, Blumenfeld, & Hoyle, 1988; Miller, Behrens, Greene, & New-
man, 1993; Nolen, 1988; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991) has indicated that students
who approach instructional tasks with the goal of increasing their understand-
ing or skill (i.e., students with learning or task goals) report greater use of
self-regulatory activities and meaningful or deep cognitive strategies than
students who approach instructional tasks as if the tasks were tests of underly-
ing abilities (i.e., students with performance or ego goals). Additionally, sev-
eral studies have shown learning or task goals to be positively related to
measures of academic achievement (e.g., Meece & Holt, 1993; Greene &
Miller, 1996; Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991).
Although these competence-related goals clearly have a major influence
on student engagement and achievement, recent research has indicated that
there are socially directed achievement goals which may also be of impor-
tance. Wentzel’s (1989, 1991) research has demonstrated that certain social
goals in classrooms have a positive influence on achievement. Her findings
indicate that social responsibility goals, such as being dependable and getting
things done on time, were positively related to achievement, while other
social goals, such as having fun or making friends, were either unrelated or
negatively related to achievement. We view these positive social goals as
potentially important factors in explaining student academic motivation.
Among high school students these goals might manifest themselves in at least
two ways: (a) trying to please others, such as the teacher or one’s family, or
(b) trying to be socially responsible (i.e., doing what one is asked because
that is what one is supposed to do). Additional research by Wentzel (1993)
ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

390 MILLER ET AL.
resulted in a causal model which indicated that prosocial academic behaviors

(e.g., being cooperative; being helpful to others) were positively related to
achievement (GPA), and to academic behaviors observed by the teachers
(e.g., student interest in schoolwork, ability to work independently, concern
for evaluation), which in turn were positively related to achievement. Al-
though Wentzel’s findings link social behaviors to academic behaviors, they
leave open the question of whether social goals are related to student cognitive
engagement (e.g., persistent effort, self-regulation, and deep strategy use) as
has been found with learning goals. In fact, we do not know whether socially
based academic goals are empirically distinguishable from other goals such
as learning goals. It may be that the goals of wanting to please others or to
be socially responsible are merely subgoals in service of the greater goal of
learning and understanding. Our research will examine both these issues.
In addition to social goals, we believe yet another category of goals may
be important in understanding students’ motivation for academic work, the
goal of obtaining future consequences. By future consequences we mean
anticipated and valued distant consequences thought to be at least partially
contingent on task performance but not inherent in the performance itself.
Future consequences related to the academic work of high school students
might include, but are not limited to, long-term financial rewards, maintaining
eligibility for extracurricular activities such as band or athletics, obtaining
admission to college, or reaching future career objectives.
The inclusion of future consequences such as these is consistent with the
motivational frameworks of Eccles (e.g., Eccles et al., 1983, ‘‘utility value’’
of a task), Ford (1992, ‘‘material gain’’), Maehr (1984, ‘‘extrinsic rewards’’),
Markus and Nurius (1986, ‘‘possible selves’’), Nuttin (1984, 1985, ‘‘time
perspective’’), and Raynor (1974a, ‘‘future orientation’’). The importance of
future consequences to student academic goals can be seen in the empirical
work which has been done on the topic. Raynor’s research (e.g., Raynor,
1974b; Raynor, Atkinson, & Brown, 1974) indicates that students with posi-
tive future orientations toward their classes achieve at higher levels than
students who do not see the future utility of their classes. DeVolder and Lens
(1982) found that students with high grades and high levels of reported study
effort valued distant future goals more highly than students with low grades
and low levels of reported study effort. More recent work by Schutz (1993;
Schutz & Lanehart, 1992) has indicated that adoption of long-term educational
goals (e.g., graduating, obtaining a masters or doctorate) was positively related
to both achievement and reported self-regulation and strategy use among both
college and high school students. Another purpose of our research was to
examine the extent to which important future consequences contribute to the
explanation of variance in both student engagement in academic tasks (e.g.,
effort, strategy use, self-regulation) and achievement.
We believe the inclusion of a broader array of student goals for engaging
ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

in academic work is important for gaining a better understanding of student

motivation in academic settings (see also Urdan & Maehr, 1995). As high-
lighted by the work of DeVolder and Lens (1982), Raynor (1974b; Raynor
et al., 1974), Schutz (1993), and Wentzel (1989, 1991), there are goals other
than learning and performance that are related to engagement in academic
tasks and achievement. By determining whether these goals represent clearly
distinct factors and examining their relationships to each other, to cognitive
engagement, and to achievement we can enlighten both theory and practice.
If social goals and future consequences prove to be unique factors and account
for additional variance in cognitive engagement and achievement beyond
that accounted for by learning goals, then perhaps they may prove useful in
attempting to improve the academic engagement of students who are directing
their energies elsewhere. If these goals do not add to our understanding of
cognitive engagement and achievement, then we can have greater confidence
in the parsimony of theories of academic motivation which focus on compe-
tence goals alone.
Although student goals provide direction and incentive for academic work,
student ability beliefs or self-perceptions of ability also influence involvement
in academic work. As Bandura (1986) has argued, peoples’ beliefs about their
ability to successfully perform a task (i.e., their self-efficacy beliefs) influence
their willingness to attempt the task, the level of effort they will expend, and
their persistence in the face of challenge. Considerable research supports this
claim [see Schunk (1989) for a comprehensive review]. Eccles’ (Eccles et
al., 1983; also Wigfield, 1994) expectancy-value theory of achievement moti-
vation also maintains that expectancies for success and ability perceptions
influence willingness, effort, and persistence. Additionally, goal theories such
as Dweck’s (e.g., Dweck & Leggett, 1988), Maehr’s (1984), and Nicholls’
(1989), have predicted interactions between perceptions of ability and domi-
nant goal orientations. More specifically, individuals with dominant perfor-
mance goal orientations will behave in a mastery-oriented fashion (i.e., seek
moderately challenging goals, exert effort in order to succeed) only when
their perceived ability is high. If they doubt their capabilities, they will exhibit
a helpless orientation (i.e., avoid challenge and effort). In contrast, individuals
with dominant learning goals are predicted to behave in a mastery-oriented
fashion whether their perceived ability is high or low. We wonder whether
goals besides learning and performance interact with perceived ability. For
example, might future consequences or the desire to please others override
low perceptions of ability and lead to high levels of effort expenditure and
persistence?
Finally, the subject area chosen for our research was high school mathemat-
ics. We chose mathematics because it is a subject in which we anticipated
great variation in future consequences and perceptions of ability. However, the
choice of mathematics as the context for our research also created additional
ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

392 MILLER ET AL.
complexity. Previous research in mathematics achievement (e.g., Fennema,

1984; Hyde, Fennema, & Lamon, 1990) and motivation for mathematics (e.g.,
Meece, Wigfield, & Eccles, 1990; Pajares & Miller, 1994; Stipek, 1984)
revealed gender differences. Although not a primary focus of our research,
we examined our data for evidence of mean differences between males and
females on our subscales and for evidence of different patterns of relationships
among the variables for males and females.
To begin addressing these issues we conducted an exploratory study. The
purposes were to: (a) determine whether the various goals for student engage-
ment in academic work (learning and performance goals, future consequences,
goals to please the teacher and to please the family) are empirically distinct
factors; (b) explore the interrelationships among perceived ability and the
categories of goals which might underlie student engagement in academic
work; (c) explore the relationship between the goal measures and perceived
ability, and the measures of engagement in academic work (e.g., self-regula-
tion, strategy use, effort, persistence, and achievement); (d) explore which
combination of goals, perceived ability, and their interactions are the best
predictors of cognitive engagement (self-regulation, cognitive strategy use,
effort, and persistence); and (e) explore which combination of self-regulation,
cognitive strategy use, effort, and persistence best predict achievement. This
exploratory study was followed by a second study which attempted to replicate
and extend our initial findings.
STUDY 1
Method
Participants
The participants were 297 high school student volunteers from a large, middle class suburban
high school in the mid-South. The sample was a mixture of tenth through twelfth grade students
enrolled in Geometry, Algebra II, Trigonometry, Pre-Calculus, or Advanced Placement Calculus,
which were taught by six different teachers. The distribution of students across grade levels was:
102 tenth graders, 99 eleventh graders, and 88 twelfth graders with eight participants failing to
identify their grade level. The sample included 144 males and 144 females, with 9 students
failing to report gender.
Data Sources
Students completed an 83-item instrument that we called the ‘‘Attitude Toward Mathematics
Survey.’’ In this study we used only those items measuring the following variables: (a) goals for
doing the academic work assigned in the class; (b) self-perceptions of ability for the class; (c) self-
regulation and cognitive strategy use in studying for the class; (d) persistence when faced with
difficult problems in the class; and (e) effort compared to other classes. All but one of the items
used a five-point Likert-type format. The Likert scales were anchored with ‘‘strongly disagree’’
and ‘‘strongly agree.’’ The questions were focused on the mathematics classes in which the students
were currently enrolled. The measure of effort used a single multiple choice item.
The goal measures on this instrument were a combination of previously validated scales and
new ones created for this research project. The items measuring student learning goals (four
ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

items) and performance goals (four items measuring outperforming others and four items measur-
ing avoiding looking bad) were based on item pools used previously by Miller et al. (1993) and
Greene and Miller (1996). New items were developed to measure pleasing others—particularly
family and the teacher (four items) and being perceived as socially responsible by the family
and the teacher (four items). As will be described in detail later, the items intended for these
two subscales did not load as anticipated on separate factors; however, they did form two related
factors, ‘‘pleasing the teacher’’ and ‘‘pleasing the family,’’ which were used to form the scales
used in this study. New items were also developed for the future consequences measure (four
items). Each of the future consequences items included a variety of examples of possible conse-
quences (e.g., money, eligibility for extracurricular activities, college admission). In this investiga-
tion we were not concerned with the question of whether some future consequences are more
closely related to cognitive engagement than others, we were merely concerned with whether
such consequences in general were related to cognitive engagement. Perceived ability was mea-
sured with eight items and required students to judge their ability for the current math class.
These items were based on items used previously by Greene and Miller (1996) and Miller et al.
(1993). The items for each subscale can be seen in Table 1.
The level of student engagement in the academic activities was measured with five self-report
subscales (self-regulation, deep and shallow cognitive strategy use, persistence, and effort). Self-
regulation was assessed with 12 items addressing the extent to which students were involved in
planning and organizing study efforts, goal setting, and self-monitoring of progress. These items
were based on self-regulation items which had been used successfully in previous research (Miller
et al., 1993). Analysis of the item-subscale correlations indicated that three of these items were
lowering the reliability of the scale and were dropped from the analysis. There were 9 deep
cognitive strategy items and 5 shallow cognitive strategy items. The deep processing items
focused on strategies geared to understanding math work, whereas the shallow processing items
focused on strategies for rote memorization. Approximately one-third of the deep and shallow
strategy items had been used previously (Greene & Miller, 1996). The new deep and shallow
strategy items were generated by the researchers, one of whom had been a secondary mathematics
teacher for many years. Analysis of item-subscale correlations indicated that 2 of the deep
strategy items and 1 of the shallow strategy items were lowering the reliabilities of their respective
scales and were dropped from the analyses. Student persistence in dealing with class work was
measured with 9 items. Two of these items had low correlations with the scale as a whole and
were dropped from subsequent analyses. The effort students expended for their current math
class in relation to other classes was assessed with a multiple choice item with 5 alternatives:
‘‘Extremely high (probably as much effort as I’ve ever put into a class)’’ to ‘‘Extremely low
(probably the least amount of effort I’ve ever put into a class).’’ The middle choice was ‘‘About
average.’’ This approach to measuring effort was thought to be preferable to having students
make direct estimates of how much effort they expended. We felt having students judge the
relative amount of effort expended would be far easier than attempting to quantify effort per se.
The items for all but the effort subscales can be seen in Table 2.
In addition to the measures of student engagement, there was also a measure of student
achievement. Student achievement was determined by percentage grade for the semester. The
percentage was based on quizzes, tests, homework, and participation. Although different teachers
applied different weightings to these components of the semester grade, each used the same
percentage grading system (90–100% Å A; 80–89% Å B, and so on). Despite the measurement
error that this variability in weightings adds to the achievement measure, it is nevertheless
preferable to the use of a standardized achievement measure because the latter is less directly
influenced by student study efforts related to school.
Procedures
The instrument was administered during the last week of school. Students were told we were
seeking volunteers to complete a survey about their attitudes toward their math class and the
ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

394 MILLER ET AL.
TABLE 1
ITEMS, FACTOR LOADINGS, AND CRONBACH a RELIABILITIES FOR THE GOAL AND PERCEIVED
ABILITY SUBSCALES USED IN STUDIES 1 AND 2
Subscales Factor loading
Learning goal (a Å .80/.82)

. . . I like to understand really complicated ideas. (.77)
. . . I like to work hard to solve challenging problems. (.66)
. . . I like learning interesting things. (.56)
. . . I like to understand the material I study. (.48)
Future consequences (a Å .69/.65)
. . . good grades lead to other things that I want (e.g., money, graduation,
college acceptance or scholarships, eligibility for extracurricular
activities). (.65)
. . . my grades have a personal payoff for me (e.g., rewards from my
family, graduation, scholarships, college acceptance). (.63)
. . . I get some reward or recognition for doing well. (.30)
. . . if I do well I get praise or rewards from other people. (.25)
Performance goals (a Å .87/.86)
. . . I want look smart to my friends. (.81)
. . . I don’t want others to think I’m not smart. (.69)
. . . I can show people that I am smart. (.63)
. . . I like to do better than other students. (.61)
. . . I don’t want to be the only one who cannot do the work well. (.58)
. . . I don’t want to look foolish or stupid to my friends, family, or
teachers. (.57)
. . . I like to score higher than other students. (.54)
. . . I don’t want to be embarrassed about not being able to do the work. (.49)
Pleasing the teacher (a Å .68/.70)
. . . that is what the teacher asked me to do. (.60)
. . . that is what school is all about. (.50)
. . . I don’t want my teacher to be unhappy with what I’ve done. (.47)
. . . I want the teacher to think I am a good student. (.43)
. . . that is what I’m supposed to do. (.40)
Pleasing the family (a Å .75/.76)
. . . that is what my family expected me to do. (.72)
. . . I want my family to think I am a good student. (.64)
. . . I don’t want to make my family unhappy. (.59)
Perceived ability subscale (a Å .93/.93)
I have a good understanding of the mathematical concepts I’ve been
taught. (.75)
I am confident I have the ability to understand the ideas taught in this
course. (.72)
I am certain I understand the math presented in this class. (.80)
I am confident about my ability to do the mathematical computations in
this class. (.71)
Compared with other students in this class my skills are weak. (R) (.73)
I think I am doing better than other students in this class. (.74)
Relative to others in this class, I think I am good at mathematics. (.83)
I am confident I can perform as well or better than others in this class. (.78)
Note. Each goal item was prefaced with the phrase ‘‘I do the work assigned in this class
because. . .’’ (R) indicates reverse scoring of the item.
ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

TABLE 2
ITEMS AND CRONBACH a RELIABILITIES FOR THE COGNITIVE ENGAGEMENT SUBSCALES
USED IN STUDIES 1 AND 2
Subscale
Self-regulation subscale (a Å .80/.78)

Before a quiz or exam, I plan out how I will study the material.
It is easy for me to establish goals for learning in this class.
When I study I take note of the material I have or have not mastered.
I organize my study time well for this class.
I have a clear idea of what I am trying to accomplish in this class.
When I read a problem, I make sure I know what I am asked to do before I begin.
When I finish working a problem I check my answer to see if it is reasonable.
I try to organize an approach in my mind before I actually start problems.
When I finished working on practice problems I check my work for errors.
Deep strategy use subscale (a Å .63/.69)
When studying, I try to combine different pieces of information from course material in
new ways.
I draw pictures or diagrams to help me solve some problems.
I work several examples of the same type of problem when studying mathematics so I can
understand the problems better.
I work practice problems to check my understanding of new concepts or rules.
I examine example problems that have already been worked to help me figure out how to
do similar problems on my own.
I classify problems into categories before I begin to work them.
When I work a problem, I analyze it to see if there is more than one way to get the right
answer.
Shallow processing strategy use subscale (a Å .65/.73)
I try to memorize the steps for solving problems presented in the text or in class.
When I study for tests I review my class notes and look at solved problems.
When I study for tests I use solved problems in my notes or in the book to help me
memorize the steps involved.
I find reviewing previously solved problems to be a good way to study for a test.
Persistence subscale: (a Å .75/.81)
If I have trouble understanding a problem, I go over it again until I understand it.
I try to complete homework assignments as fast as possible without checking my accuracy.
(R)
If I have trouble solving a problem, I’m more likely to guess at the answer than to look at
examples in the book to try to figure things out. (R)
If I have trouble solving a homework problem in the book, I copy down the answer in the
back of the book if it is available. (R)
If I have trouble solving a problem, I’ll try to get someone else to solve it for me. (R)
When I read something in the book that doesn’t make sense, I skip it and hope that the
teacher explains it in class. (R)
When I run into a difficult homework problem, I keep working at it until I think I’ve
solved it.
When I run into a difficult homework problem, I usually give up and go on to the next
problem. (R)
Note. (R) indicates reverse scoring of the item.
ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

396 MILLER ET AL.
way they studied for the class. They were informed that participation was optional and that their
responses would be confidential. The teachers administered the instrument at the end of the class
period to the students who returned signed consent forms. Students completed the instrument in
15–20 min. The teachers later recorded the semester percentage grade for each student.
Results and Discussion

Factor Analysis
To determine whether the collection of goal subscales loaded on separate
factors as anticipated, a Maximum Likelihood factor analysis with a Varimax
(orthogonal) rotation was performed.4 Seven factors with Eigen values greater
than one emerged. As expected, the four learning goal items loaded on their
own factor (loadings were .48 or greater). Additionally, all of the performance
goal items (both outperforming others and avoiding looking bad) fell on a
single factor with loadings of .49 or greater; however, two of these items
also loaded on their own unique factor (the seventh factor). No other items
had loadings above .2 on this seventh factor. Because this factor had no
conceptual value it was not used in subsequent analyses.
The items intended to measure future consequences varied in their loadings.
Two of the items had strong loadings on this factor (.63, .65). The other two
items had more modest loadings (.30, .25) on this factor and also had stronger
loadings on the performance goal factor (.37 and .45 respectively). Neverthe-
less, these items did have the third and fourth strongest loadings on the future
consequences scale and were conceptually more closely related to future
consequences than to performance goals; therefore, we decided to use all four
items in subsequent analyses as the future consequences subscale.
The items intended to measure ‘‘pleasing others’’ and ‘‘social responsibil-
ity’’ did not load on separate factors as expected. Rather, two items intended
to measure pleasing others loaded with three of the social responsibility items
(loadings were .40 or greater). These items were each related to pleasing
the teacher and complying with general classroom expectations. Also, the
remaining social responsibility item, which focused on meeting family expec-
tations for school, loaded with the remaining pleasing others items which
focused on pleasing family (loadings were .59 or greater). Thus our items
really measured ‘‘pleasing the teacher’’ and ‘‘pleasing the family.’’ We used
these subscales in our study. The items for each subscale and their correspond-
ing factor loadings can be seen in Table 1.
4
We chose to use a varimax rotation initially because we wanted to create factors which were
clearly distinct from one another. At that time we did not realize that our goal variables would
be as highly intercorrelated as they are. As result of these correlations we ran the factor analysis
again using an oblique rotation. The outcome was essentially the same, with the same items
loading on the same factors.
ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

TABLE 3
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE SURVEY ON LEARNING MATHEMATICS
Study 1 Study 2
Scale Combined Male Female Combined Male Female
Learning goal M 3.36 3.41 3.32 3.41 3.40 3.42

SD .85 .80 .89 .82 .83 .81
Performance goal M 2.95 2.93 3.00 2.80 3.02 2.64
SD .85 .85 .85 .79 .78 .76
Future consequence M 3.67 3.58 3.76 3.65 3.67 3.64
SD .74 .74 .74 .69 .76 .65
Please the teacher M 3.47 3.32 3.66b 3.42 3.31 3.49
SD .67 .65 .63 .67 .66 .66
Please the family M 3.54 3.48 3.58 3.46 3.48 3.44
SD .91 .93 .88 .99 .98 1.01
Perceived ability M 3.44 3.66b 3.22 3.72 3.92 3.58
SD .97 .86 1.01 .87 .76 .91
Self-regulation M 3.20 3.17 3.22 3.35 3.22 3.44
SD .64 .64 .65 .60 .63 .56
Deep processing M 3.18 3.12 3.24 3.40 3.32 3.44
SD .57 .60 .54 .60 .67 .55
Shallow processing M 3.76 3.64 3.88 3.98 3.79 4.11a
SD .67 .70 .61 .65 .76 .53
Persistence M 3.09 3.05 3.14 3.24 3.10 3.34
SD .64 .62 .67 .70 .67 .71
Effort M 3.29 3.07 3.50b 3.24 3.08 3.35
SD 1.01 .99 .98 1.01 .98 1.02
Achievement M 77.91 76.73 79.09 82.29 81.36 82.91
SD 13.76 13.74 13.74 11.47 10.06 12.34
a
Study 2: Males and females differed significantly, p õ .004.
b
Study 1: Males and females differed significantly, p õ .001.
Subscale Reliabilities and Descriptive Statistics

Cronbach a reliability coefficients were computed for the modified sub-
scales resulting from the factor analyses and the examination of item-subscale
correlations (except ‘‘effort’’ which consisted of only one item). As can be
seen in Tables 1 and 2, coefficients for the goal subscales, perceived ability,
and cognitive engagement subscales ranged from .63 to .92, all indicating
acceptable internal consistencies.
The subscale means and standard deviations for the entire sample can be
found in Table 3. We also report means and standard deviations separately
for the males and females in our sample. To determine whether differences
between means were significant, 12 two-tailed t tests were conducted. a for
each test was set at .001, yielding an a of .01 for the collection of comparisons.
ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

398 MILLER ET AL.
As can be seen in Table 3, males and females were quite similar on most of
the subscales and on achievement. Significant differences were only found
for perceived ability (with males scoring higher), pleasing the teacher (with
females scoring higher), and effort (with females scoring higher). There were
no differences on achievement or any other goals or cognitive engagement
measures.
Subscale Intercorrelations
Two of our research questions were ‘‘what are the interrelationships among
the various goal categories and what are the interrelationships among the
goal measures and the other variables.’’ We used Pearson Product Moment
Correlations to address these questions. Because of the large number of corre-
lations calculated and the large n, we chose a conservative a level of .001,
yielding an a of .066 for the collection of correlations. Table 4 presents a
summary of all the correlations. Due to missing data for some participants,
the n for this analysis and all subsequent analyses was 275, with 137 males
and 138 females.
The statistically significant correlations among the five goal subscales are
described below. Learning goals were positively correlated in a modest way
with performance goals and future consequences (.28 and .21, respectively),
but were uncorrelated with either pleasing the family or teacher. Performance
goals and future consequences were positively correlated with each other
(.41) and with pleasing family (.36 and .34, respectively) and the teacher (.43
and .32). Pleasing the teacher and pleasing the family were positively corre-
lated with each other (.40). These findings indicate that students’ desires to
learn and understand are unrelated to pleasing others, whereas trying to look
good to others or viewing academic work as necessary for obtaining future
consequences are intertwined with wanting to please others.
Students’ perceptions of ability were correlated most strongly with
their learning goal ratings (.56) and somewhat more modestly with future
consequences and performance goal ratings (.21 and .20, respectively).
Learning goals and perceived ability were related to cognitive engage-
ment, effort, and persistence subscales as expected from previous re-
search. Also as expected, performance goals were not significantly corre-
lated with either effort or persistence.
Of particular interest was the relationship of future consequences and the
goals of pleasing the teacher and the family to the subscales dealing with
cognitive engagement, effort, and persistence. These goals had previously
been shown to be related to achievement, but little or no research had ad-
dressed their relationship to mediating factors such as self-regulation or effort.
Interestingly, both future consequences and pleasing the teacher had moderate
positive correlations with self-regulation (.35 and .25), deep strategy use (.28
and .23), and shallow strategy use (.32 and .34). Pleasing the family had a
ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

ab03$$0916
TABLE 4
INTERCORRELATIONS OF GOALS, PERCEIVED ABILITY, COGNITIVE ENGAGEMENT MEASURES, AND ACHIEVEMENT —STUDY 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. LOGAL
2. PGOAL .28** —
3. FUT CON .21** .41** —
09-20-96 10:39:03
4. PL TCH .11 .43** .32** —
5. PL FAM 0.09 .36** .34** .40** —
6. PA .56** .20** .21** .01 0.05 —
cepa
7. REG .62** .30** .35** .25** .04 .58** —
8. DEEP .54** .30** .28** .23** .04 .39** .64** —
9. SHALLOW .25** .23** .32** .34** .20** .17 .47** .39** —
10. PERSIST .47** .09 .24** .05 0.10 .49** .56** .43** .23** —
11. EFFORT .35** .11 .22** .14 .05 .25** .37** .36** .34** .25** —
AP: CEP
12. ACH .41** .22** .33** .14 .08 .56** .40** .26** .17 .36** .38**
ENGAGEMENT IN ACADEMIC WORK
Note. LGOAL, learning goals; PGOAL, performance goals; FUT CON, future consequences; PL TCH, pleasing the teacher; PL FAM, pleasing the
family; PA, perceived ability in math; REG, self-regulation; DEEP, deep processing strategies; SHALLOW, shallow processing strategies; PERSIST,
persistence; EFFORT, relative effort; ACH, end of semester achievement score (percentage).
** p õ .001.
399
400 MILLER ET AL.
correlation of .20 with shallow strategy use, but was not significantly related
to either self-regulation or deep strategy use. Although future consequences
were moderately correlated with effort and persistence (.22 and .24), pleasing
the teacher and the family were not.
Finally, correlations of the five goals with the achievement score revealed
learning goal scores to have the strongest relationship (.41) followed by future
consequences (.33) and performance goals (.22). Pleasing the teacher and
pleasing the family were not significantly correlated with achievement. Of
the intervening variables thought to influence achievement, self-regulation
had the strongest correlation with achievement (.40), followed closely by
persistence (.36) and effort (.38). Deep strategy use had a more modest corre-
lation with achievement (.26), while the correlation between shallow strategy
use and achievement did not reach statistical significance.
To explore the possibility that different patterns of intercorrelations might
exist for males and females, we computed separate correlation matrices and
tested for significant differences between the strength of the correlations found
for males and females (Ferguson, 1971). Overall the pattern of intercorrela-
tions seemed to be quite similar for males and females, with none of the
differences reaching significance at the .001 level.
Multiple Regression Analyses

Although the simple correlations among the variables in this study provide
one glimpse of the data, we recognize that many of these variables are corre-
lated with each other, thus the simple correlations may imply greater explana-
tion of variance than is truly the case. In order to identify unique sources of
variance in the prediction of variables (our last two research questions) we
used multiple regression. Multiple regression analyses also allowed us to
examine the extent to which the interactions of the goal variables and per-
ceived ability added to the explanation of variance in self-regulation, deep
strategy use, effort, persistence, and achievement. By using the regression
approach to the exploration of interactions we were able to avoid the loss of
information or power associated with dichotomizing continuous variables
(Aiken & West, 1991).
To aid in the interpretation of possible interaction effects, all predictor
variables were converted to ‘‘centered scores’’ (Aiken & West, 1991) which
are simply the difference of scores from the mean (i.e., deviation scores).
Converting scores in this way has no effect on the relationship of the scores
to other variables, but simplifies the interpretation of interactions because it
sets the mean of each predictor variable to zero. Hence interactions can be
interpreted as conditional effects of one variable on the dependent variable,
when the other variable in the analysis is set to zero (Aiken & West, 1991,
pp. 37–39). Additionally, using centered scores to create the interaction terms
ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

controls multicollinearity between the interaction terms and the lower order
terms used to produce them.
Final regression equations were the result of a multistep procedure. Initial
regression analyses included all first-order terms and the two-way interaction
terms involving perceived ability with each of the five goals. In order to
determine whether the interaction terms explained variance in addition to that
accounted for by the first-order terms, all the terms, including the interactions,
were forced into the equation. If, following the initial regression analysis, any
of the two-way interactions were significant (p õ .005), they were retained in
the regression equation as were all first-order terms.
If none of the two-way interactions were significant, the analysis was
recomputed deleting all the interactions. In this analysis we wanted to deter-
mine the combination of variables which best predicted the criterion variable,
with the restriction that each variable included in the equation contribute
significantly to the explanation of variance (p õ .005). We did this by testing
all possible subsets of first-order variables. This procedure avoids the pitfalls
of stepwise regression procedures (Thompson, 1995) and enabled us to sys-
tematically examine changes in R2 with progressively more inclusive models,
from one variable to all six variables.
Our initial analyses on these questions were conducted on the entire sample.
Subsequent analyses were conducted to determine whether different regres-
sion equations served as better predictors for males and females.
Regression Analyses: Entire Sample
The following analyses were conducted with the entire sample. In an effort
to enhance the replicability of our findings, we chose a conservative a level
of p õ .005 for inclusion in the equation. Although this stringent test of
significance increased the likelihood of failing to reject the null hypothesis
when it is in fact false for this data set, it minimized the likelihood of identi-
fying spurious relationships in this data set as being significant.
Predictions of self-regulation. Self-regulation was regressed on the five
goals, perceived ability, and all the two-way interaction terms involving per-
ceived ability. None of the interaction terms added significantly to the predic-
tion of self-regulation so the regression was redone including only the first-
order variables in an all-possible-subsets analysis. The final regression equa-
tion included learning goals, pleasing the teacher, future consequences, and
perceived ability (see Table 5). This equation accounted for 52% of the
variance in self-regulation scores (F(4,270) Å 73.15, MSe Å .20). Because
we were interested in whether the new goal variables accounted for unique
amounts of variance we examined the change in R2. With learning goals and
perceived ability already in the equation, adding pleasing the teacher produced
an R2 change of .04. Subsequent addition of future consequences produced
an R2 change of .02.
ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

402 MILLER ET AL.
TABLE 5
REGRESSION WEIGHTS FOR VARIABLES ENTERING THE EQUATION —STUDY 1
Dependent variable
Independent variable B SE B b
Self-regulation (R2 Å .52)

Learning goals .29 .04 .39*
Perceived ability .22 .03 .33*
Please the teacher .15 .04 .15*
Future consequences .13 .04 .15*
(Intercept) 3.20 .03
Deep strategy (R2 Å .32)
Effort (R2 Å .12)
Persistence (R2 Å .29)
Achievement with cognitive engagement variables only (R2 Å .24)
Effort 3.57 .78 .26*
Persistence 4.06 1.37 .19*
Self-regulation 4.14 1.43 .19*
Achievement with cognitive engagement and motivation variables (R2 Å .40)
Perceived ability 6.60 .70 .46*
Effort 3.09 .67 .23*
Future consequences 3.40 .90 .18*
* p õ .005.
Previous research has shown that learning goals and perceived ability are
positively related to self-regulation (e.g., Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990; Zimmer-
man & Martinez-Pons, 1990). Our results show that not only do they contrib-
ute to the explanation of student reports of self-regulatory behavior, but they
do so uniquely. Additionally, two other goal variables were identified as
explaining unique sources of variation in self-regulation, albeit modestly,
pleasing the teacher and future consequences.
Predictions of deep processing strategy use. Scores on the deep processing
strategy use variable were regressed on the five goals, perceived ability,
and all the two-way interaction terms involving perceived ability. The initial
regression equation indicated a significant performance goals by perceived
ability interaction (b Å 0.18) and a significant first-order effect for learning
ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

goals (b Å .42). The other nine variables in the equation did not contribute
significantly to the prediction of deep processing. The multiple R for the
entire model (all 11 variables) was .63 (F(11,263) Å 15.05, MSe Å .21),
indicating that 39% of the variance in deep processing scores was explained
by the collection of 11 predictors. The interaction indicated that when perfor-
mance goals were high, levels of deep processing were slightly above the
mean (about .1 of a point), regardless of the level of perceived ability. How-
ever, when performance goals were low (01 SD), variation in perceived
ability made a difference: deep processing was slightly above the mean (.1
of a point) when perceived ability was high, slightly below the mean when
perceived ability was moderate (0.04 of a point), and further below the mean
(0.2 of a point) when perceived ability was low.
The interaction term, although statistically significant, did not explain much
unique variance in deep processing. This can be seen by comparing the
variation resulting from the interaction with that resulting from the first-order
effect for learning goals. The maximum variation in the interaction occurred
between high (/1 SD) and low (01 SD) levels of perceived ability when
performance goals were low (01 SD). The difference there is .3 of a point.
In contrast the difference in deep processing scores between high learning
goals (/1 SD) and low learning goals (01 SD) is .48 of a point (/.28 points
to 0.20 points). The contribution of the interaction in the context of nine
statistically nonsignificant predictors seems to us to add little to our under-
standing. As a result, we reanalyzed the data deleting the interaction terms
and examined all possible subsets of the first-order variables seeking a more
parsimonious explanation of the data.
The most parsimonious equation included two goals, learning goals and
future consequences (see Table 5). The multiple R was .57 (F(2,272) Å 64.06,
MSe Å .22), indicating that 32% of the variance in deep processing scores
was explained by the two predictors, with learning goals accounting for the
greatest amount of variance. The addition of future consequences to the equa-
tion produced an R2 change of .03 which met our a for inclusion (.005). The
relationship between deep strategy use and learning goals is consistent with
previous research (e.g., Ames & Archer, 1988; Miller et al., 1993; Pintrich &
DeGroot, 1990), the contribution of future consequences is a new finding.
Predictions of effort. Students’ self-reports of effort expended on their math
class were regressed on the five goals, perceived ability, and the two-way
interactions involving perceived ability. None of the interactions met our
criterion for inclusion so a new analysis was conducted using only the first-
order effects. As expected, learning goals scores were significantly related to
effort, in fact this was the only variable to meet our criterion for entry of p
õ .005 (see Table 5). Learning goals accounted for 12% of the variance in
effort scores (F(1,273 Å 37.18, MSe Å .90). Interestingly, the addition of
future consequences to the equation produced an R2 change of .02 (b Å .15);
ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

404 MILLER ET AL.
however, this variable failed to meet the a for inclusion (p Å .009). The
learning goal finding is consistent with goal-orientation theories such as
Dweck’s (Dweck & Leggett, 1988) and Nicholls’ (1989).
Predictions of persistence. Student self-reports of persistence in studying
for their math classes were regressed on the five goals, perceived ability,
and the two-way interactions involving perceived ability. In this analysis no
interactions reached significance; however, in the subsequent all-possible-
subsets analysis, two of the first-order variables were significant (perceived
ability and learning goals). These variables accounted for 29% of the variance
in persistence scores (F(2,272) Å 56.87, MSe Å .29). In general, this finding
is consistent with predictions from both goal theory (e.g., Dweck & Leggett,
1988; Nicholls, 1989) and self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1986).
Interestingly, the addition of two other variables, future consequences and
pleasing the family, accounted for an additional 3% of the variance in persis-
tence scores; however, only the future consequences variable met our criterion
for inclusion. It had a b of .17 (p õ .003). The pleasing the family variable
was a suppressor variable, whose inclusion in the equation increased the
predictive strength of the future consequences variable (from .11 to .15),
although not having much predictive strength of its own (b Å 00.08, p õ
.03). Thus when the common variance between future consequences and
pleasing the family was partialled out, future consequence scores were more
strongly related to persistence. This is consistent with the theoretical discus-
sion of future consequences laid out in the Introduction and is consistent with
common sense: as students come to perceive current performance as important
for attaining future consequences, student persistence on goal-related tasks
increases.
Prediction of achievement. Student percentage grade for the semester was
regressed on the four cognitive engagement variables which were presumed
to mediate the influence of goals and perceived ability on achievement (self-
regulation, deep processing, effort, and persistence). The all-possible-subsets
procedure was used. The regression analysis indicated that three of the cogni-
tive engagement variables met our criterion for entry: effort, persistence, and
self-regulation (see Table 5). Together these variables accounted for 24% of
the variance in achievement (F(3,271) Å 29.25, MSe Å 144.66). A follow-
up analysis was conducted in which the five goal variables and perceived
ability were entered into the equation along with the four cognitive engage-
ment variables using the all-possible-subsets procedure. This was done to
determine whether any of the goals or perceived ability accounted for addi-
tional variation in achievement or even accounted for greater variation than
the cognitive engagement variables. This analysis indicated that perceived
ability, effort, and future consequences provided the best explanation of vari-
ance in achievement and accounted for 40% of the variance in achievement
(F(3,271) Å 61.30, MSe Å 114.08). With these variables in the equation, the
ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

variance explained by persistence and self-regulation dropped to the point of

nonsignificance (practically and statistically). This suggests that perceived
ability, future consequences, and effort account for the majority of the varia-
tion in achievement that is related to self-regulation and persistence, plus
additional variance. This additional variance might include other forms of
cognitive engagement, such as specific strategies or self-regulatory activities
which we did not tap with our measures.
Multiple Regression Analyses: Gender Specific
Having determined the best predictors for the entire sample, we next wanted
to determine whether different combinations of variables would serve as the
best predictors for males and females on the various criterion variables. To
do so we computed separate regressions for males and females on each
criterion variable. We also examined the extent to which these gender-specific
equations differed from the predictions obtained by using the variables that
were significant in the combined analyses to predict performance for males
and females separately.
The gender-specific regression analyses resulted in equations which con-
tained similar variables for both males and females in every case. Addition-
ally, in many cases the same variables found to be significant predictors
for the entire sample also proved to be significant predictors for males and
females.
In only two cases did a variable not found in the regression analysis for
the entire sample appear in a separate gender equation, deep processing and
persistence. In the entire sample, deep processing scores were predicted by
learning goals and future consequences. The equation for males included
learning goals and future consequences as significant predictors (R2 Å .34),
while for females learning goals and pleasing the teacher were significant (R2
Å .35). The pleasing the teacher variable was not part of the model predicting
deep processing for the combined sample, although pleasing the teacher would
have entered the equation for the entire sample had we chosen a three-variable
model; however, pleasing the teacher had a b weight of .12 (p Å .01) which
failed to meet our criterion for inclusion.
The analysis of persistence scores for males revealed a performance goal
by perceived ability interaction (b Å 0.24). This interaction was not found
in the analysis for females, nor in the analysis for the entire sample. This
interaction was similar to that found for the entire sample for deep processing.
It indicated that persistence scores for males were uniformly above the mean
when performance goals were high, regardless of variations in perceived
ability; however, when performance goals were low persistence only rose
above the mean when perceived ability scores were high. In no circumstances
did variations in performance goals lead to high levels of persistence. In
general we did not see this interaction adding important theoretical or practical
ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

406 MILLER ET AL.
information beyond that accounted for by the first-order effects which were
identical for males and females.
In summary, in all but two cases the common regression variables produced
R2 equal to or greater than those resulting from the gender-specific equations.
We do not view these deviations from the common regression equations for
the entire sample to be of sufficient magnitude to warrant the use of separate
equations for males and females.
Conclusions: Study 1
The results of this initial study clearly indicate that goals other than those
related to the pursuit of competence influence academic motivation. The factor
analysis indicated that future consequences, pleasing the teacher, and pleasing
the family represent distinct factors from each other and from learning goals
and performance goals. Also, the correlation and regression analyses indicated
that other goals were statistically significant contributors to the explanation
of variance in cognitive engagement, namely, future consequences and want-
ing to please the teacher. Finally, three measures of cognitive engagement
(self-regulation, persistence, and effort) were significant contributors to the
explanation of variance in achievement; however, perceived ability, future
consequences, and effort provided the best prediction of achievement. The
data from this exploratory study were consistent with the theoretical frame-
works which guided instrument development.
Analyses examining gender differences in the intercorrelations among the
variables and the multiple regressions revealed only minor variations related
to gender. These variations were not of sufficient magnitude to suggest that
males and females have different patterns of relationships among the variables
included in this study. Significant differences in mean scores occurred on the
measures of perceived ability, effort, and pleasing the teacher. These differ-
ences may prove to be important in light of their relationships to cognitive
engagement and achievement; however, we did not control for past mathemat-
ics achievement, which might also be responsible for some or all of these
differences.
Although the results of this study provided insights into the relationships
of future consequences and pleasing the teacher to cognitive engagement and
achievement, the data were all collected at one time, at the end of the semester.
Having done this, we were unable to examine the true predictive value of
the goal variables and perceptions of ability. Few studies have examined the
predictive utility of goals and ability perceptions. We believe that examining
the predictive utility of goals and perceived ability will provide important
theoretical and practical information. As a result a second study was con-
ducted. Study 2 used the same measures of goals, perceived ability, cognitive
engagement, and achievement; however, it did so in a true predictive design.
That is, the goal measures and perceived ability were measured early in the
ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

semester and were used to predict cognitive engagement and achievement at

the end of the semester. This study will enable us to see whether the correla-
tions among the goal variables and the cognitive engagement variables can
be replicated, and it will allow us to test whether the goal and perceived
ability measures can predict cognitive engagement and achievement.
STUDY 2
Method
Participants
The participants were 269 high school student volunteers enrolled in math courses at the same
large, middle class suburban school used in Study 1. Although some of the students may have
participated in both studies, the studies were 1 year apart, making contamination from previous
exposure to the instrument unlikely. The sample included 10th through 12th grade students from
classes ranging from general math to calculus. There were 117 males, 150 females, and 2 who
declined to state their gender. Participants who had missing data for any of the analyses were
dropped from all analyses. This left a total of 199 participants, 80 males and 119 females.
Data Sources
Students completed the scales from the Attitude Toward Mathematics Survey as revised in
Study 1; however, the scales were divided into two instruments which could be administered at
different times. The scales measuring goals for doing the academic work assigned in the class
and self-perceptions of ability for the math class in which they were enrolled were combined to
form the ‘‘Initial Attitude Toward Mathematics Survey.’’ The self-regulation, cognitive strategy
use, persistence, and effort scales formed the ‘‘Follow-up Attitude Toward Mathematics Survey.’’
Achievement was represented by the students’ percentage grade for the semester.
Procedures
Parent consent forms were sent home in January and students who brought back signed forms
were eligible to participate. Those who volunteered filled out a consent form and completed the
Initial Attitude Toward Mathematics Survey in early March during their math classes. They
completed the Follow-up Attitude Toward Mathematics Survey in May during the week prior
to final examinations.
Results and Discussion

Subscale Reliabilities and Descriptive Statistics
We examined the reliability of the subscales on the two instruments using
Cronbach a’s (see Tables 1 and 2). Coefficients for the goal subscales and
perceived ability ranged from .67 to .93, all indicating acceptable internal
consistencies. The cognitive engagement variables had Coefficient a’s ranging
from .66 to .80, again showing acceptable levels of internal consistency.
As we did for Study 1, we report the means and standard deviations for
each subscale for the entire sample, and for males and females separately
(see Table 3). To determine whether significant differences existed between
the mean scores of males and females we conducted 12 two-tailed t tests
using an a level of .05 for the collection of comparisons (p õ .004 for each
ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

408 MILLER ET AL.
individual test). The scores for males and females were quite similar overall;
however, two significant differences emerged. Females scored higher than
males on shallow processing (4.11 and 3.79, respectively; t(129.5) Å 03.21),
and males had higher performance goal scores than females (3.02 and 2.64,
respectively; t(165.9) Å 3.43). Although males scored higher than females
on perceived ability (3.92 and 3.58, respectively), this difference failed to
reach our criterion a (t(187.7) Å 2.81, p õ .006). The failure to replicate the
gender differences in effort scores and pleasing the teacher found in Study 1
and the new differences in shallow processing and performance goal scores
found only in this study suggest that these differences may be the result of
sampling error. Only the difference in perceived ability appeared consistently.
Subscale Intercorrelations
As can be seen in Table 6, the Pearson Product Moment Correlations
among the goal variables, perceived ability, cognitive engagement, and
achievement were quite consistent with those found in Study 1. The most
notable differences between Study 1 and Study 2 were decreases in the
strength of correlations between those variables measured early in the semes-
ter and those measured at the end of the semester in Study 2. These included
correlations between learning goals and achievement (.28 versus .41 in Study
1), perceived ability and self-regulation (.33 versus .58 in Study 1), pleasing
the teacher and both deep processing (.08 versus .23 in Study 1) and shallow
processing (.10 versus .34 in Study 1), pleasing the family and shallow pro-
cessing (.04 versus .20 in Study 1), performance goals and self-regulation
(.18 versus .30 in Study 1), and deep processing (.18 versus .30 in Study 1)
and shallow processing (.07 versus .23 in Study 1). Such decreases in the
strength of the correlations were expected because of the nearly 3-month
separation between the collection of data for the predictor variables and the
outcome variables. Overall the patterns of correlations were quite similar in
both studies. Additionally, no correlations differed significantly between
males and females.
Multiple Regression Analyses: Entire Sample
These analyses followed the same procedures described in Study 1. Separate
regression analyses were done for self-regulation, deep processing, effort, and
persistence. These analyses were based on the entire sample. Subsequent
analyses conducted by gender will be reported later. In order to increase the
likelihood of replicating the findings from Study 1, the a level for inclusion
in these analyses was set at .01. The b weights and multiple R’s for each
equation are presented in Table 7.
Predictions of self-regulation. Self-regulation was regressed on the five
goals, perceived ability, and all the two-way interaction terms involving per-
ceived ability. None of the interaction terms met our a for inclusion so an
ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

ab03$$0916
TABLE 6
INTERCORRELATIONS OF GOALS, PERCEIVED ABILITY, COGNITIVE ENGAGEMENT MEASURES, AND ACHIEVEMENT —STUDY 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. LGOAL —
2. PGOAL .20* —
3. FUT CON .18 .35** —
09-20-96 10:39:03
4. PL TCH .11 .47** .36** —
5. PL FAM 0.09 .42** .36** .53** —
6. PA .46** .19* .36** .11 .07 —
7. REG .54** .18 .32** .26** .04 .33** —
cepa
8. DEEP .47** .18 .24** .08 0.07 .26** .74** —
9. SHALLOW .30** .07 .19* .10 .04 .14 .45** .52** —
10. PERSIST .53** .03 .19* .10 0.14 .39** .68** .56** .35** —
11. EFFORT .36** .01 .20* .06 0.10 .35** .43** .31** .16 .41** —
12. ACH .28** .02 .22** .13 .08 .47** .28** .18 .16 .40** .28**
AP: CEP
ENGAGEMENT IN ACADEMIC WORK
Note. LGOAL, learning goals; PGOAL, performance goals; FUT CON, future consequences, PL TCH, pleasing the teacher; PL FAM, pleasing the
family; PA, perceived ability in math; REG, self-regulation; DEEP, deep processing strategies; SHALLOW, shallow processing strategies; PERSIST,
persistence; EFFORT, relative effort; ACH, end of semester achievement score (percentage).
* p õ .01.
** p õ .001.
409
410 MILLER ET AL.
TABLE 7
REGRESSION WEIGHTS FOR VARIABLES ENTERING THE EQUATION —STUDY 2
Dependent variable
Independent variable B SE B b
Self-regulation (R2 Å .34)

Please teacher .16 .06 .18*
Please family 0.05 .04 0.09
Deep strategy (R2 Å .24)
Effort (R2 Å .17)
Persistence (R2 Å .39)
Learning goals (LG) .38 .06 .44*
Perceived ability (PA) .19 .06 .23*
Please family (FAM) 0.14 .05 0.20*
Performance goals (PG) 0.12 .06 0.13
Future consequences (FUT) .16 .07 .15
Please teacher (TCH) .13 .08 .12
LG 1 PA .18 .07 .21*
PG 1 PA 0.01 .07 0.01
FUT 1 PA 0.03 .08 0.02
FAM 1 PA .03 .07 .04
TCH 1 PA .07 .10 .06
Achievement with cognitive engagement variables only (R2 Å .16)
Achievement with cognitive engagement and motivation variables (R2 Å .28)
Perceived ability 5.00 .87 .38*
* p õ .01.
analysis involving all possible combinations of first-order terms was con-

ducted. The most parsimonious explanation of the data involved learning goals
and future consequences. This equation accounted for 34% of the variance in
self-regulation scores (F(2,196) Å 50.98, MSe Å .24). Learning goals had a
b of .49, while future consequences had a b of .24. The best three-variable
model added pleasing the teacher, which was significant in Study 1; however,
ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

it failed to reach our criterion for inclusion in this study ( p õ .03 rather than
.01), despite having a b weight of .14 which was only slightly less than that
found in Study 1 (b Å .15). The best four-variable model added pleasing the
family to the equation (F(4,194) Å 27.80, MSe Å .23) and had an R2 of .36
(see Table 7). The pleasing the family variable did not contribute to the
prediction itself (b Å 0.09), but was a suppressor which improved the b
weight for pleasing the teacher (.18), making it a significant contributor at
the .01 level. We view this model as providing insights into the complexities
of the various goal relationships with self-regulation.
Prediction of deep processing strategy use. Scores on the deep processing
strategy use variable were regressed on the five goals, perceived ability, and
all the two-way interaction terms involving perceived ability. Unlike the
finding in Study 1, none of the interaction terms contributed significantly to
the prediction of deep processing. As a result, the first-order terms were
analyzed using the all-possible-subsets procedure. The best regression equa-
tion included two goals: learning goals and future consequences (see Table
7). These variables accounted for over 24% of the variance in deep processing
scores (F(2,196) Å 31.48, MSe Å .27). The R2 for learning goals alone was
.22, while the addition of future consequences resulted in an R2 change of
approximately .03. The failure to find evidence of the performance goal by
perceived ability interaction found in Study 1 is not surprising in light of
its relatively modest contribution in that study (see the discussion of deep
processing). Although the R2 in this study was somewhat lower than that in
Study 1 (.24 versus .32), the b’s for learning goals (.50 for Study 1 and .44
for Study 2) and future consequences (.18 for Study 1 and .17 for Study 2)
were similar.
Predictions of effort. Student self-reports of effort expended on their math
class were regressed on the five goals, perceived ability, and the two-way
interactions involving perceived ability. None of the interactions met the
criterion for inclusion. The subsequent all-possible-subsets analysis identified
two variables as significant predictors of effort: learning goals and perceived
ability (see Table 7). Overall, these variables accounted for 17% of the vari-
ance in effort scores (F(2,196) Å 20.16, MSe Å .86). This finding differed
from Study 1. In both studies the learning goal variable was the single best
predictor in the equation (b Å .35 in Study 1 and .24 in Study 2); however,
in Study 1 the future consequences variable, rather than perceived ability,
was the second best predictor of effort. This may simply reflect that these
are not consistent predictors of effort in this setting.
Predictions of persistence. Student self-reports of persistence in studying
for their math classes was regressed on the five goals, perceived ability, and
the two-way interactions involving perceived ability. In the full model, the
learning goal by perceived ability interaction met our criterion for inclusion,
as did two of the six first-order variables, learning goals and pleasing the
ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

412 MILLER ET AL.
FIG. 1. Variations in persistence as a function of the perceived ability by learning goal interac-
tion in Study 2.
family. The full model explained 39% of the variance in persistence scores
(F(11,187) Å 10.74, MSe Å .32).
The perceived ability by learning goal interaction revealed that persistence
tended to be low when learning goals were also low, regardless of the level
of perceived ability (see Fig. 1). However, when learning goal scores were
high, persistence was highest when perceived ability was also high and lowest
when perceived ability was low. This interaction explained 4% of the variance
in persistence scores. Learning goal scores, which had a positive relationship
to persistence, explained the greatest amount of variance in the full model, a
little over 19%. Pleasing the family accounted for another 4% of the variance;
ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

however, it had a negative b weight (0.20), indicating that persistence tended

to be highest when the desire to please the family was lowest.
These findings shared some commonalities with Study 1, yet they differed
from the first study as well. First, in Study 1 the learning goal by perceived
ability interaction did not contribute to the prediction of persistence, although
both variables did so as first-order effects. Second, in Study 1 the pleasing
the family goal itself made a relatively minor contribution to the prediction
of persistence (b Å 0.12); however, it had a suppressor effect which enhanced
the predictive power of future consequences scores. In Study 2 we found
pleasing the family scores to be a stronger predictor (b Å 0.20) and future
consequences scores contributed little. In both studies pleasing the family
scores were negatively related to persistence. Finally, learning goal scores
were consistently strong predictors of persistence as theorized by goal orienta-
tion theories (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Nicholls, 1989).
We also conducted a follow-up analysis in which we removed all the
interaction terms and performed an all-possible-subsets analysis on the first-
order variables. We did this to determine whether the first-order variables
found to best predict persistence in Study 1 would emerge as the best pre-
dictors in this study. As in Study 1, the two-variable model of learning goals
and perceived ability was the best predictor (F(2,196) Å 43.58, MSe Å .34).
The R2 for this model was .31, which is quite similar to that found in Study 1
(.29). Learning goals and perceived ability had b’s of .45 and .18, respectively.
Prediction of achievement. Student percentage grade for the semester was
regressed on the five cognitive engagement variables presumed to mediate
the influence of goals and perceived ability on achievement. The analysis
indicated that persistence was the only cognitive engagement variable signifi-
cantly related to achievement (see Table 7). Persistence accounted for 16%
of the variance in achievement (F(1,197) Å 36.52, MSe Å 111.63). In Study
1 we also found persistence to be a significant predictor of achievement;
however, in that study self-regulation and effort also met the criterion for
inclusion. In the present study neither self-regulation nor effort was signifi-
cant, although effort was the second best predictor with a b of .14 (p Å .06),
somewhat smaller than the b of .26 found in Study 1.
As in Study 1, we did a follow-up analysis in which we entered the five
goal variables and perceived ability into the equation along with the cognitive
engagement variables. Under these conditions, only perceived ability and
persistence surfaced as significant contributors to the explanation of variance
in achievement (see Table 7). This equation accounted for 28% of the variance
in achievement (F(2,196) Å 37.74, MSe Å 96.02). This differed from Study
1 in that persistence, rather than future consequences and effort, remained in
the final equation with perceived ability. Again, the correlations between
achievement and the cognitive engagement variables indicated moderate posi-
tive relationships; however, the common variance across these variables was
ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

414 MILLER ET AL.
shared with perceived ability, which accounted for all their variance plus
additional unique variance in achievement. Only persistence made a signifi-
cant, unique contribution to the explanation of achievement beyond that ex-
plained by perceived ability.
Multiple Regression Analyses: Gender Specific
To determine whether different combinations of variables would prove to
be better predictors of certain outcomes for males and females we conducted
a second series of regression analyses for each gender separately. An a level
of .01 was used in these analyses.
In two of these analyses, self-regulation and achievement, the same vari-
ables found to be significant predictors for the total sample also were the
predictors for males and females when analyzed separately. In the remaining
analyses only variables found in the common regression analyses proved to
be significant predictors for males and females, although not all of the vari-
ables from the common regression equations entered the separate equations
each time.
In sum, we saw relatively minor variations in the variables that predict
cognitive engagement and achievement between males and females. In fact,
the common regression equations (i.e., those from the combined sample)
serve both groups quite well. Any variations between males and females in
these variables may simply be the result of sampling variations rather than
gender per se.
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
This research project set out to determine whether goals other than learning
(mastery) and performance (ego) were unique and important contributors to
our understanding of student engagement in academic tasks. The results of
our research provide a clear indication that the answer is yes. Although
learning goals consistently contributed to the prediction of all four measures
of student engagement, two other goals were found to make statistically
significant contributions: pleasing the teacher and future consequences.
In both studies, scores on the pleasing the teacher goal contributed uniquely
to the explanation of variance in self-regulation scores. This consistent finding
indicates that wanting to meet the teacher’s expectations covaries with the
reported use of self-regulatory behaviors such as setting goals, monitoring
progress, and making adjustments in study behavior. However, pleasing the
teacher scores did not bear much relationship to the other indicators of cogni-
tive engagement or achievement. Interestingly, in both studies pleasing the
teacher was significantly correlated with all the other goal measures except
learning goals. Thus, wanting to outperform others or to avoid looking incom-
petent (performance goals), attain future consequences, and please family
were all related to pleasing the teacher. This raises the possibility that pleasing
ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

the teacher may not be an end in itself, rather it may be a strategy used by
students in service of other goals.
Wentzel (1989, 1991) reported a positive relationship between students’
achievement and their self-reports of socially responsible acts, such as
‘‘turning in work on time’’ and ‘‘being responsible.’’ Based on her findings
we expected a positive correlation between our pleasing the teacher goal
and student achievement, yet neither study revealed such a correlation.
We suspect that this discrepancy is due largely to differences in what
was measured in each case. Wentzel measured specific acts that are both
intuitively and empirically related to academic achievement. Our measure
of pleasing the teacher tapped the extent to which students reported doing
school work because they wanted to please the teacher. In retrospect,
Wentzel’s measure seems much more directly related to achievement than
ours. On the positive side, our findings of no correlation between the
goal of pleasing the teacher and student achievement and the positive
relationship between pleasing the teacher and self-regulation suggests that
the benefits of wanting to please the teacher do not arise from a halo
effect due to students’ compliant behavior; rather the benefits are found
in increased self-regulatory behavior. This is consistent with Wentzel’s
(1993) findings indicating a positive correlation between prosocial behav-
iors and academic behaviors. At this time we have found little additional
research that examines the influences of wanting to please the teacher on
student achievement or cognitive engagement. Clearly more needs to be
learned about this phenomenon.
In both Study 1 and Study 2, the future consequences score was a
significant predictor of self-regulation and deep processing, even when
controlling for the other goals and perceived ability. Although future con-
sequences scores were positively correlated with effort and achievement
in both studies, when entered in regression models with the other goals
and perceived ability they contributed significantly to the explanation of
variance only with achievement and only in Study 1. These findings regard-
ing future consequences are consistent with the previous work of Raynor
(1974b; Raynor et al., 1974) and Schutz (1993). Raynor (1974b; Raynor
et al., 1974) showed that students who perceived performance in their
courses as being related to attaining future goals achieved at higher levels
than those who did not. In both of our studies we found significant positive
correlations between students’ future consequences scores and course
achievement. Schutz (1993) found a positive correlation between the level
of students’ academic aspirations (e.g., completion of high school, college,
or graduate school) and their reports of self-regulation and strategy use.
In our studies we found significant positive correlations between future
consequences scores and reports of self-regulation and strategy use. Addi-
tionally, our multiple regression findings in Study 2 indicated that the
ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

416 MILLER ET AL.
future consequences goal was a significant predictor of self-regulation and

deep strategy use when controlling for the variance accounted for by learn-
ing goals.
Theories of achievement motivation built around competence-related goals
have suggested that students’ desires to increase their knowledge, understand-
ing, or skills (i.e., learning, task, or mastery goals) are major factors in guiding
their level of engagement in academic tasks. Although our findings support
this theoretical assertion, they also indicate that we must consider both the
extent to which students hold valued long-term goals and the extent to which
they perceive their current school experiences as related to the attainment of
those goals. This suggests that educators have more tools to work with in
their efforts to foster cognitive engagement and learning.
Recent attempts to foster academic motivation have been directed toward
encouraging the development of learning goal orientations among students
(e.g., Ames, 1992; Maehr & Midgley, 1991). Although such efforts are likely
to be productive, it may be unrealistic to think that all instructional tasks
encountered in school will match students’ optimal levels of challenge and
their interests, making the activation of learning goals difficult, if not impossi-
ble. Learning for the sake of wanting to understand or improve one’s skills
has limits. Students often have areas in which they believe increasing their
competence is important; one might say they are interested in the topic.
However, students also have areas in which they lack interest; areas in which
they fail to perceive an incentive for increasing their skill or improving their
understanding. In the latter situations, motivation may be enhanced through
conditions that help students internalize the future utility of school-related
knowledge and skills. Somehow, students must come to perceive academic
learning tasks as worthy of making a personal investment, if not for intrinsic
reasons, then perhaps for more utilitarian ones. Although current research on
self-regulation emphasizes the need for proximal goals or performance stan-
dards (e.g., Schunk, 1991), our findings suggest the need to emphasize the
coordination of proximal goals with distal valued outcomes (future conse-
quences) since the latter may prove to be important for sustaining effort in
academic areas of low interest to students. Additionally, intervention research
might examine the teaching of goal setting so that it includes not only estab-
lishing proximal performance standards, but also helps students develop dis-
tant outcomes or consequences that are both of value to them and contingent
on their academic efforts.
The suggestion that greater emphasis be given to utilitarian incentives may
seem at odds with the research showing the damaging motivational effects
of both immediate extrinsic rewards (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 1985; Lepper &
Hodell, 1989) and of perceiving the primary purpose of schooling as prepara-
tion for obtaining wealth and status (Nicholls, Patashnick, & Nolen, 1985);
however, we see several important differences between these lines of research
ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

and the future consequences we have examined. First, immediate extrinsic

rewards are typically presented in a manner that diminishes the subject’s
sense of self-determination. The pursuit of distant outcomes on the other hand
is likely to be viewed as self-determined rather than imposed. As Ryan,
Connell, and Grolnick (1992) have argued, individuals can ‘‘internalize’’ or
assume ownership of formerly extrinsic goals. Having done so, the internal-
ized extrinsic goals guide self-regulated efforts toward goal attainment. Sec-
ond, in demotivating extrinsic reward conditions the immediate rewards are
typically presented in a manner providing little feedback about progress or
competence. In the case of future consequences, current accomplishments on
tasks perceived to be relevant for attainment of long-term goals are more likely
to provide clear feedback about progress toward the desired goal. Finally, our
suggestion that we find ways to help students adopt a ‘‘future orientation’’
and help them see that school learning is an important component in attaining
their future goals is in no way at odds with the Nicholls et al. admonition
against portraying the primary purpose of schooling as the fostering of the
attainment of wealth and status. Our focus is on encouraging students to value
learning, if not for intrinsic reasons, then for utilitarian ones such as providing
students with the tools they need for their future endeavors and by providing
them with options for the future. We see a clear distinction between our
emphasis on enhancing students’ valuing of learning and crass attempts to
convince students that schooling is important only because it leads to riches
and power.
In addition to the new findings on future consequences and pleasing the
teacher, our studies also reconfirmed the work of others related to learning
goals. As in numerous other studies (e.g., Greene & Miller, 1996; Meece &
Holt, 1993; Nolen, 1988; Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991)
we found learning goals to be positively related to students’ cognitive engage-
ment and achievement. These findings are consistent with goal orientation
theories such as those of Dweck (1986) and Nicholls (1989). The results
of our second study also indicate that learning goals, in addition to future
consequences, are valuable predictors of student engagement and achievement
over a period spanning several months.
Our results failed to support other predictions from goal orientation theories,
however. Goal orientation theories (e.g., Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Nicholls,
1989) predict that variations in perceptions of ability should have relatively
little impact on student persistence when students are strongly committed to
learning goals; however, in Study 2 our data indicated that student persistence
was highest when students with high learning goals also had high perceptions
of ability. This finding also has implications for expectancy-value theories
(e.g., Eccles et al., 1983; Wigfield, 1994) and self-efficacy theory (Bandura,
1986), which predict that ability perceptions are positively correlated with
persistence. Our findings indicate that was true only when students’ learning
ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

418 MILLER ET AL.
goals were high. Further research is needed to determine whether this interac-
tion is reliable and the theories need to be modified.
A second divergence from goal orientation theory concerns the prediction
that students with high performance goals will exhibit their greatest effort
and persistence when their perceptions of ability are high, but will avoid
effort and persistence when their perceptions of ability are low. We found
no evidence to support these predictions. Although these findings may indicate
weaknesses in the theory, they may also indicate limitations in the procedures
we used to measure goals. The accuracy of these theoretical predictions hinges
on determining which goal orientation is dominant for an individual. The use
of independent, continuous scales to measure learning and performance goals
makes it impossible to determine which goal would take precedence should
a conflict arise (c.f., Miller et al., 1993). Thus, our methods may not provide
a sensitive test of these predictions from the goal orientation theories.
Our analysis of gender differences indicated considerably greater similarity
among the male and female participants than differences. The correlational
analyses suggest no reliable gender differences in the patterns of intercorrela-
tion among the variables. Additionally, the common regression equations
proved to be as good or better overall predictors of cognitive engagement
and achievement than the gender specific equations. Contrary to the correla-
tion and regression analyses, there was one consistent difference between
means for males and females across studies, perceptions of ability.
The perceived ability difference found in both studies is consistent with
previous research (e.g., Fennema & Sherman, 1978; Meece, Wigfield, &
Eccles, 1990; Pajares & Miller, 1994; Stipek, 1984) showing males to have
higher perceptions of ability in mathematics than females. It should be noted,
however, that we did not equate males and females on prior achievement. In
these circumstances it is possible that the differences in perceived ability
may be a reflection of past achievement rather than gender per se. Had past
achievement been controlled the perceived ability differences between males
and females may have disappeared.
Although the goals of pleasing the teacher and future consequences appear
to have important positive relationships to cognitive engagement and achieve-
ment, no such relationships were found for pleasing the family. In fact, the
only contribution the goal of pleasing the family made was a negative one
related to the predictions of persistence and self-regulation. In both studies
persistence scores tended to be at their lowest when pleasing the family scores
were high. In Study 2 pleasing the family had a nonsignificant negative
relationship to self-regulation, but it served as a suppressor variable and
improved the prediction for the pleasing the teacher variable.
Based on these analyses it appears that having the goal of pleasing the
family as a rationale for doing academic work is detrimental to students’
cognitive engagement. Nevertheless, pleasing the family did emerge as a
ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

distinct factor in the factor analysis and it did have conceptually consistent
relationships to other goals such as pleasing the teacher, future consequences,
and performance goals. Although the goal of pleasing the family did not have
significant relationships to cognitive engagement or achievement in our study,
research by others suggests that it may interact with student culture/ethnicity.
The research of Hamilton, Blumenfeld, Akoh, and Miura (1989) indicated
that Japanese children identified pleasing authority figures, such as the family,
as a major reason for performing well in school to a significantly greater
extent than did American children. Research by Steinberg, Dornbusch, and
Brown (1992) indicated that for American children there were differing pat-
terns of familial support for academic achievement and differing parenting
styles as a function of family ethnicity. Such variations may alter the relation-
ship between the goal of pleasing the family and students’ cognitive engage-
ment. Regrettably the research reported here was not designed to examine
variations in culture or ethnicity.
Although we are pleased with the results of this initial examination of the
broader goal framework, we want to sound a note of caution. The participants
in our studies were high school students enrolled in mathematics classes. The
results we found may not generalize to younger students or to other subject
areas. Wigfield (1994) speculated that children in early to middle elementary
school grades may not have a clearly developed sense of the utility of school
learning, which might lead to developmental differences in motivation. Wig-
field (1994) cited empirical evidence that students in late elementary grades
value math more than high school students, whereas the reverse was found
for English. Clearly additional research with different age populations and
with different subject matter areas is needed.
In conclusion, we believe research on academic motivation will benefit
from developing a better understanding of goals in addition to learning and
performance. Our measures of future consequences and pleasing the teacher
both shared important relationships with cognitive engagement variables. Ad-
ditional research is needed to tease out the underlying components comprising
these variables and to determine what causal relationships, if any, exist be-
tween them and cognitive engagement. Increased understanding of these and
perhaps other goals may provide the foundation needed to guide more compre-
hensive achievement motivation interventions.
REFERENCES
AIKEN, L. S., & WEST, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
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.
ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

420 MILLER ET AL.
BANDURA, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
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.
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, 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.
FENNEMA, E. (1984). Girls, women and mathematics. In E. Fennema & M. J. Ayer (Eds.), Women
and Education: Equity or equality? Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing.
FENNEMA, E., & SHERMAN, J. A. (1978). Sex-related differences in mathematics achievement
and related factors: A further study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 9,
189–203.
FERGUSON, G. A. (1971). Statistical analysis in psychology and education. (3rd ed.) New York:
McGraw–Hill.
FORD, M. E. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions, and personal agency beliefs. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publication.
GREENE, B. A., & MILLER, R. B. (1996). Influences on course performance: Goals, perceived
ability, and self-regulation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 181–192.
HAMILTON, V. L., BLUMENFELD, P. C., AKOH, H., & MIURA, K. (1989). Japanese and American
Children’s reasons for the things they do in school. American Educational Research Journal,
26, 544–571.
HYDE, J. S., FENNEMA, E., & LAMON, S. J. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics perfor-
mance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 139–155.
LEPPER, M. R., & HODELL, M. (1989). Intrinsic motivation in the classroom. In C. Ames & R.
Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Volume 3 goals and cognitions (pp.
73–105). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
MAEHR, M. L.. (1984). Meaning and motivation: Toward a theory of personal investment. In R.
Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Student motivation, Vol. 1
(pp. 115–144). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
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., & HOLT, K. (1993). A pattern analysis of students’ achievement goals. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 85, 582–590.
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.
MEECE, J. L., WIGFIELD, A., & ECCLES, J. S. (1990). Predictors of math anxiety and its influence
on young adolescents’ course enrollment intentions and performance in mathematics. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 82, 60–70.
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 Educa-
tional Psychology, 18, 2–14.
ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

NICHOLLS, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
NICHOLLS, J. G., PATASHNICK, M., & NOLEN, S. B. (1985). Adolescent’s theories of education.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 683–692.
NOLEN, S. B. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motivational orientations and study strategies. Cogni-
tion and Instruction, 5, 269–287.
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. Hills-
dale, NJ: Erlbaum.
PAJARES, F., & MILLER, M. D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathemati-
cal problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 193–203.
PINTRICH, P. R., & DEGROOT, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components
of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.
PINTRICH, P. R., & GARCIA, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the college
classroom. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement,
Vol. 7 (pp. 371–401). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
RAYNOR, J. O. (1974a). Future orientation in the study of achievement motivation. In J. W.
Atkinson & J. O. Raynor (Eds.), Motivation and achievement (pp. 121–154). New York:
V. H. Winston & Sons.
RAYNOR, J. O. (1974b). Relationship between achievement-related motives, future orientation,
and academic performance. In J. W. Atkinson & J. O. Raynor (Eds.), Motivation and
achievement (pp. 173–180). New York: V. H. Winston & Sons.
RAYNOR, J. O., ATKINSON, J. W., & BROWN, M. (1974). Subjective aspects of achievement
motivation immediately before an examination. In J. W. Atkinson & J. O. Raynor (Eds.),
Motivation and achievement (pp. 155–171). New York: Winston & Sons.
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 &
T. S. Pittman (Eds.), Achievement and motivation: A social-developmental perspective (pp.
167–188). New York: Cambridge University Press.
SCHUNK, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and cognitive skill learning. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.),
Research on motivation in education. Vol. 3: Goals and cognitions (pp. 13–44). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
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,
SCHUTZ, P. A. (1993). Long-term educational goals, learning strategies use and academic perfor-
mance for high school students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA, April.
SCHUTZ, P. A., & LANEHART, S. L. (1992). The relationship between long-term educational
goals, learning strategies and academic performance. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, April.
STEINBERG, L., DORNBUSCH, S. M., & BROWN, B. B. (1992). Ethnic differences in adolescent
achievement: An ecological perspective. American Psychologist, 47, 723–729.
STIPEK, D. J. (1984). Sex differences in children’s attributions for success and failure on math
and spelling tests. Sex Roles, 11, 969–981.
THOMPSON, B. (1995). Stepwise regression and stepwise discriminant analysis need not apply
here: A guidelines editorial. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 525–534.
URDAN, T. C. ,& MAEHR, M. L. (1995). Beyond a two-goal theory of motivation and achievement:
A case for social goals. Review of Educational Research, 65, 213–243.
WENTZEL, K. R. (1989). Adolescent classroom goals, standards for performance, and academic
ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

422 MILLER ET AL.
achievement: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 131–

142.
WENTZEL, K. R. (1991). Social and academic goals at school: Motivation and achievement in
context. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement,
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.
WIGFIELD, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental
perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 49–78.
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.
ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

Engagement in Academic Work: The Role of Learning Goals, Future Consequences, Pleasing Others, and Perceived Ability

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Engagement in Academic Work: The Role of Learning Goals, Future Consequences, Pleasing Others, and Perceived Ability

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 21, 388–422 (1996)

ARTICLE NO. 0028

Engagement in Academic Work: The Role of Learning

Recent theories of academic achievement motivation have focused on the

Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Raymond B. Miller, Department of

ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

resulted in a causal model which indicated that prosocial academic behaviors

ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

in academic work is important for gaining a better understanding of student

ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

complexity. Previous research in mathematics achievement (e.g., Fennema,

ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

Subscales Factor loading

Learning goal (a Å .80/.82)

ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

Self-regulation subscale (a Å .80/.78)

Note. (R) indicates reverse scoring of the item.

ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

Results and Discussion

ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

Scale Combined Male Female Combined Male Female

Learning goal M 3.36 3.41 3.32 3.41 3.40 3.42

Subscale Reliabilities and Descriptive Statistics

ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

Multiple Regression Analyses

ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

Self-regulation (R2 Å .52)

ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

variance explained by persistence and self-regulation dropped to the point of

ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

semester and were used to predict cognitive engagement and achievement at

Results and Discussion

ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

Self-regulation (R2 Å .34)

analysis involving all possible combinations of first-order terms was con-

ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

however, it had a negative b weight (0.20), indicating that persistence tended

ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

future consequences goal was a significant predictor of self-regulation and

ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

and the future consequences we have examined. First, immediate extrinsic

ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

achievement: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 131–

ab03$$0916 09-20-96 10:39:03 cepa AP: CEP

You might also like