Research in Higher Education, Vol. 44, No.

5, October 2003 ( 2003)

COGNITIVE, MOTIVATIONAL, AND VOLITIONAL

DIMENSIONS OF LEARNING:
An Empirical Test of a Hypothetical Model

Antonio Valle,*,** Ramón G. Cabanach,* José C. Núñez,‡

Julio González-Pienda,‡ Susana Rodrı́guez,* and Isabel Piñeiro*

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
The principal aim of this research is to contrast empirically a hypothetical model de-
veloped on the basis of the fundamental assumptions of current self-regulated learn-
ing models. In line with evaluation criteria of model fit, a high rate of congruence
between the hypothesized theoretical model and the empirical data was observed.
Analysis of the effects between the variables of the model revealed the following
relevant aspects: students’ predisposition to feel responsible for the results of their
academic behavior (internal attribution) is related to positive self-image (academic
self-concept), both being important conditions for development of learning-oriented
motivation (learning goals). All of this involves selection and use of learning strate-
gies for deep information processing (deep learning strategies), which leads students
to assume responsibility with high levels of persistence, perseverance, and tenacity
so as to achieve goals defined by the motivational orientation. This persistence and
effort to achieve the proposed goals has in turn a positive and significant effect on
academic achievement.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
KEY WORDS: motivation; deep learning strategies; self-regulated learning; academic
achievement.

Eight years ago, Paul R. Pintrich (1994), one of the most relevant researchers
in the field of educational psychology, published an interesting work on future
research trends in the education area. Pintrich invited readers to reflect on cur-
rent information, to attempt to link it together, and to develop integrated theoret-
ical models. He acknowledged that, till then, most of the research on the process
of school learning had focused on the study of cognitive, motivational, and
affective components taken separately, and there were very few studies of the

*Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology, University of La Coruña.

‡Department of Pychology, University of Oviedo.
**Address correspondence to: Antonio Valle, Departamento de Psicologı́a Evolutiva y de la Edu-
cación, Universidad de La Coruña, Campus de Elviña s/n, 15071 La Coruña, Spain. E-mail: vallar-
@udc.es

557
0361-0365/03/1000-0557/0  2003 Human Sciences Press, Inc.
558 VALLE, CABANACH, NÚÑEZ, GONZÁLEZ-PIENDA, RODRı́GUEZ, AND PIÑEIRO

interactions and interrelationships between these components. Consequently,

Pintrich pointed out the need to develop integrated models that incorporate not
only general knowledge and cognitive strategies but also the motivational and
will components.
In this work, Pintrich (1994) predicted that in the near future, a large amount
of empirical research would appear in which the relationships between the com-
ponents would be studied explicitly. He was not mistaken. In the last 5 years, a
large number of theoretical contributions have been published that study in
depth the integration of the cognitive, motivational, and self-regulation areas,
and that make up the new “self-regulated learning” models. One of the best
examples is the Handbook of Self-Regulation, edited by three currently very
important researchers (Boekaerts, Pintrich, and Zeidner, 2000), with the collabo-
ration of an exceptional catalogue of experts in self-regulated learning.
According to these authors, self-regulated learning models attempt to inte-
grate cognitive, affective-motivational, and behavioral aspects. The models pro-
posed by Monique Boekaerts, John G. Borkowski, Barbara L. McCombs, Paul
R. Pintrich, or Barry J. Zimmerman are examples of this integrative perspective.
As Boekaerts (1999) pointed out, self-regulated learning models allow research-
ers to (a) describe the various components involved in successful learning, (b)
explain reciprocal and recurrent relationships established between these compo-
nents, and (c) directly relate learning with the self, or, in other words, with
goals, motivation, will, and emotions.
In contrast to previous cognitive models, current self-regulated learning mod-
els reflect the long neglected “human” (Zimmerman, 1995) or “warm” (Garcı́a
and Pintrich, 1994) side of learning. Student contribution to learning situations
is not exclusively identified with their intellectual instruments, but rather also
involves motivational (Boekaerts and Niemivirta, 2000; Covington, 2000), af-
fective, emotional (McCombs, 1998, McCombs and Marzano, in press), and
volitional aspects (Kuhl, 2000) that are related to personal equilibrium skills.
Therefore, while students construct the meaning of curricular contents, they also
develop representations of their own didactic situation, which can be perceived
as stimulating and interesting or as overwhelming and unattainable. Students
also construct self-representations in which they see themselves as competent,
interesting interlocutors both for teachers and classmates, able to solve prob-
lems, or, contrariwise, as unskilled, incompetent people with few resources. As
Solé (1993) stated, when students learn, they learn contents and they also learn
that they can learn. When they do not learn contents, they also learn something:
they learn that they are incapable of learning.
In this study, we go beyond separate consideration of motivational, cognitive
(learning strategies), and affective variables in the attempt to integrate them
conjointly in a research model. Although unavoidably limited, our model shows
the specific and interrelated functioning of these variables and the way in which
this accounts for learning and academic achievement in the university.
COGNITIVE, MOTIVATIONAL, AND VOLITIONAL DIMENSIONS OF LEARNING 559

As displayed in Fig. 1, our research model is structured along three dimen-

sions that account for achievement: (a) motivational-affective, (b) cognitive, and
(c) volitional. In general, for meaningful learning to take place, students must
be motivated and possess and mobilize the necessary cognitive strategies. A
high degree of willpower is also required to maintain the necessary effort, atten-
tion, and concentration to attain the desired goal. The characteristics of these
dimensions and the causal links that connect them are discussed below in more
detail.

MOTIVATIONAL-AFFECTIVE DIMENSION
First, there are certain conditions or personal variables of a cognitive, motiva-
tional (expectancies), and affective nature that are used by students as basic
criteria in the initial cognitive-motivational analysis of the learning task. The
result of this analysis significantly affects development of a specific academic
motivation. According to McCombs (1998), these perceptions generate expec-
tancies, both of results and of efficacy, which, on the one hand, become hopes
of obtaining specific results or consequences and, on the other, a personal belief
in one’s ability to attain these results. If students perceive tasks as unattainable,
this perception of low control will contribute to decreased success expectancies,
and consequently, to little interest in complying with task requirements or in
expending effort to perform the task. Positive expectancy fosters intrinsic moti-

FIG. 1. Basic dimensions of the general model proposed in this investigation.

560 VALLE, CABANACH, NÚÑEZ, GONZÁLEZ-PIENDA, RODRı́GUEZ, AND PIÑEIRO

vation and interest in the task, so students can apply the cognitive processes
required for task performance (Marzano, 1998).
Academic goals are some of the most important variables in current motiva-
tional research. Goals are cognitive representations of the various aims that
students can adopt in different achievement situations (italics added; González-
Pienda et al., 2002, p. 279). Traditionally, the most representative authors of
this research trend (Dweck, 1986; Nicholls, 1984) have differentiated two types
of goals: learning goals and performance goals. Learning-goal oriented students
engage in learning to acquire knowledge and increase their competence, they
consider effort the main cause of success or failure, they conceive of intelligence
as a variable and modifiable characteristic, they view difficult as tasks a chal-
lenge, and they use deep processing strategies more frequently. Performance-
goal oriented students are more interested in showing their ability, obtaining
favorable judgments of their competence levels and avoiding negative ones, they
regard learning as a means to prove their competence, they consider intelligence
a fixed and stable trait, they perceive difficult tasks as possible failure situations,
and they use low-complex level strategies more frequently.
Among the personal factors that determine motivational orientation (goals),
the most relevant are causal attributions and academic self-concept, as well as
the increasable conception of intelligence, perceived ability, and past achieve-
ment because of their direct or indirect influence.
One of the features of learning-goal oriented students is their belief that effort
is the main cause of their academic results and that ability is a modifiable char-
acteristic that depends on effort. For these individuals, more effort usually re-
sults in improved learning, and, consequently, they become more competent in
that related knowledge area. In these circumstances, causal attributions to high
levels of effort lead to high perceived competence (Meece, 1994). Therefore,
the effort-ability relations, in the aforementioned terms, and perceptions of con-
trol and personal responsibility for academic results (all associated with an inter-
nal attributional profile), contribute positively to development of learning-orien-
tated motivation. In addition, we must consider the decisive role of affective
variables and variables associated with the expectation component of motiva-
tion, that is, self-perceptions and beliefs on the academic level (academic self-
concept) and perceived competence. It is useless for people to be motivated to
solve a task if they are not convinced that they have the necessary ability and
competence to do so. It is also evident that past academic results (past achieve-
ment) is one of the most influential factors in academic self-concept and in high
self-confidence. Students who experience success instead of failure will have a
more positive self-concept, more trust in their ability, they will assume more
responsibility for their results, and will display higher levels of engagement,
effort, and persistence. All of this will lead to a more positive attitude toward
learning and, subsequently, to higher academic achievement.
COGNITIVE, MOTIVATIONAL, AND VOLITIONAL DIMENSIONS OF LEARNING 561

In addition to these variables, there are those more situational and contextual
in nature (for example, evaluation system, the teacher’s attitude, classroom orga-
nization and structure, type of tasks, etc.; Ames, 1992), that also influence the
type of goals adopted by students. In this investigation, we have included some
of these variables considered from viewpoint of the students’ perception of the
academic context, to see how the type of material, task characteristics, teaching
style, and evaluation criteria influence students’ motivational-affective disposi-
tion and the way they study and learn.

COGNITIVE DIMENSION
Second, the type and level of motivation thus acquired will significantly influ-
ence employment of the cognitive resources needed for the task. The higher the
subject’s motivation, the more likely will be the use of cognitive and learning
processes and strategies essential for optimal learning (Covington, 2000), espe-
cially if motivation is intrinsic (Suárez, Cabanach, and Valle, 2001). In any case,
depending on their strategy repertory, subjects will judge the appropriateness of
the strategies according to task requirements.
One of the basic assumptions of this investigation is that the motives and
intentions that guide students’ academic behavior determine, to a great extent,
the type of cognitive resources that students will use in various learning situa-
tions. This justifies the inclusion of learning strategies as an essentially cognitive
variable. Among the extensive diversity of definitions, they all coincide in indi-
cating two essential elements of learning strategies: on the one hand, the strate-
gies imply a sequence of mental activities or operations to facilitate learning and,
on the other, they are conscious and intentional and involve decision-making
processes, depending on the goal or aim that the students hope to achieve.
In this specific case, we focus particularly on cognitive strategies, which are
directly linked to information processing and to meaningful learning. According
to Mayer (1992), three of the most important strategies included in this cate-
gory—selection strategies, organization strategies, and elaboration strategies—
constitute the cognitive conditions of meaningful learning. Mayer defines mean-
ingful learning as a process by which the learner engages in selecting relevant
information, organizing that information into a coherent whole, and integrating
that information into the structure of preexisting knowledge.
A large number of investigations coincide in stating that adoption of learning
goals predisposes students to use cognitive strategies and self-regulation pro-
cesses to learn the material. Learning-oriented individuals tend to use deep pro-
cessing strategies that enhance their comprehension and require some effort,
such as integrating information and controlling comprehension (Graham and
Golan, 1991; Pintrich and Garcı́a, 1991). Along the same lines, Middleton and
Midgley (1997) found that learning-goal orientation predicts the use of self-
562 VALLE, CABANACH, NÚÑEZ, GONZÁLEZ-PIENDA, RODRı́GUEZ, AND PIÑEIRO

regulated learning strategies. Alternatively, performance-goal oriented students

are less likely to behave this way because they are not so much engaged in
learning itself, and the use of learning strategies requires effort; and this could
lead to the awareness that they lack the ability, which is something these indi-
viduals try to avoid by all means. Other studies (Nolen, 1988; Nolen and Hala-
dyna, 1990) have reported that learning oriented students tend to evaluate posi-
tively and to use cognitive strategies that enhance comprehension of the material
more frequently than do performance oriented students. In contrast, Anderman
and Young (1994) showed that performance-goal orientation correlates nega-
tively with the use of deep processing strategies and positively with the use of
superficial processing strategies. In fact, many studies (Meece, 1994; Pintrich
and De Groot, 1990; Pintrich and Garcı́a, 1991; Seifert, 1995) state that perfor-
mance-goal orientation is associated with the use of superficial and low-complex
learning strategies—for example, mechanical and repetitious memorizing of in-
formation.
From the results of some of the aforementioned investigations, a very impor-
tant fact about academic learning emerges: The use of strategies that enhance
meaningful learning is determined very directly by the person’s intrinsic motiva-
tion. As stated by Schneider and Pressley (1989), although knowledge of differ-
ent strategies may be necessary for their use, it is usually not enough; students
must be motivated to use that knowledge. According to this, knowledge of cog-
nitive strategies may not be related to motivational beliefs, but the use of such
strategies is related to students’ motivation (Garcı́a and Pintrich, 1994). Teach-
ers may come across students who, despite sufficient cognitive resources to
solve a certain task successfully, do not use them because they are not suffi-
ciently motivated. In many cases, lack of motivation explains why students do
not use a strategy even though they are cognitively prepared for it (Pintrich and
Schrauben, 1992).

VOLITIONAL DIMENSION
Third, the activation of one or another type of learning strategy, and their
number, will significantly influence students’ persistence and effort (the will
component) in learning. These levels of persistence will affect both learning and
academic achievement.
In our model, in addition to students’ motivation and their use of learning
strategies that are congruent with their motivational state, all this must be associ-
ated with willpower. This means that students must maintain the necessary con-
trol and regulation of effort to enable them to behave with persistence, con-
stancy, and perseverance when coping with problems or difficulties that come
up during the learning process. This mediating variable has also been included
among the learning strategies and academic achievement in other cognitive-
motivational models (see, for example, Pintrich and Schrauben, 1992). These
COGNITIVE, MOTIVATIONAL, AND VOLITIONAL DIMENSIONS OF LEARNING 563

authors incorporate an intermediary variable between the motivational and cog-

nitive components, called student’s engagement in learning, which is somewhat
similar to our persistence variable. Many studies relate high persistence to learn-
ing goals (Anderman and Young, 1994; Dweck, 1986; Midgley and Urdan, 1995;
Pintrich and De Groot, 1990; Pintrich and Garcı́a, 1991; Schunk, 1996) and low
persistence to performance goals (Anderman and Young, 1994). Similarly, El-
liot, McGregor, and Gable (1999) indicate that learning goals significantly pre-
dict deep learning, effort, and persistence.
On the other hand, in the sense of Boekaerts (1999), in our research model,
we contemplate the influence of the perception of contextual factors on the
process mentioned in the three previous subheadings. Among these factors are
underlined the perception of evaluation criteria, the perception of teaching style,
or the awareness of the type of material (psychology, chemical sciences, etc.).
Self-assessment of results achieved will significantly affect causality attribu-
tions, which, in turn, will lead students to make various judgments and evalua-
tions of personal control and self-efficacy regarding task requirements. These
judgments and evaluations will have reciprocal influence and will also affect
metacognitive, cognitive, and affective systems, as well as future perceptions
and expectancies in similar tasks. (It was not possible to study this aspect here
because a transversal strategy was used.)
The aim of this study was to contrast empirically a hypothetical model that
was developed on the basis of the most relevant assumptions of current self-
regulated learning models. This aim is difficult to accomplish because of the
large number of variables taken into account.

METHOD
Participants
Participants were 614 university students (26% males and 74% females), aged
between 18 and 23 years. Of the total sample, 314 were 1st- or 2nd-year stu-
dents, and 300 were 3rd-, 4th-, or 5th-year students. Regarding type of curricular
content, 134 studied teaching, 111 nursing, 72 physiotherapy, 139 business man-
agement, 90 psychopedagogy, and 68 chemistry. Conglomerate sampling was
employed, with the group-class as the sampling unit.

Instruments and Procedure

Learning Strategies
The Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI; Weinstein, Schulte,
and Palmer, 1987) was used to evaluate the construct deep learning strategies.
The subscales of information processing, study aids, and self-testing from the
564 VALLE, CABANACH, NÚÑEZ, GONZÁLEZ-PIENDA, RODRı́GUEZ, AND PIÑEIRO

LASSI were used to evaluate the cognitive activities that are typical of deep
learning and which we shall designate with the term “deep learning strategies.”
Previous studies coincide in the identification of a second-order three-factor
structure of the LASSI (Olejnik and Nist, 1992; Olivárez and Tallent-Runnels,
1994): (a) affective/effort-related activities (time management, concentration,
motivation, and attitude subscales); (b) anxiety-arousing activities or goal orien-
tation (anxiety, selecting main ideas, and test strategies); and (c) cognitive activ-
ities (information processing, study aids, and self-testing). More recently, Mur-
phy and Alexander (1998) did not obtain an optimal fit of the three-factor model
of the LASSI, although this model best defines the factor structure of this instru-
ment. As Murphy and Alexander stated that the lack of concordance of their
data with those obtained in previous research could be due to variables of a
cultural nature, in our study, we wished to contrast this hypothesis by means of
an exploratory factor analysis using the 10 LASSI subscales. The results coin-
cide entirely with those obtained by Olejnik and Nist and Olivárez and Tallent-
Runnels. This justifies the use of the three subscales from the LASSI (informa-
tion processing, study aids, and self-testing) to evaluate the cognitive activities
that are typical of a deep approach to learning. The reliability of this variable is
fairly high (α = .83).

Academic Goals
Motivational orientation was assessed by means of the adaptation of the Ques-
tionnaire to Measure Achievement Goal Tendencies, elaborated by Hayamizu
and Weiner (1991). This instrument provides a precise evaluation of two general
types of academic goals: learning and performance goals (although performance
goals are subdivided into two types). Learning goals are defined in the same
terms as those used by Dweck (1986). On the other hand, one of the perfor-
mance goals reflects students’ tendency to learn so as to obtain approval and
avoid parents’ and teachers’ rejection (we shall call these goals social reinforce-
ment goals), and the other goal reflects students’ tendency to learn to achieve
good academic grades and advance in their studies (we shall call these goals
performance goals). Hayamizu and Weiner obtained the following reliability
coefficients (Cronbach’s α coefficient) for each of the subscales: learning goals
(.89), social reinforcement goals (.78), and performance goals (.71). In our sam-
ple, we obtained coefficients (Cronbach’s α) of .82 for the whole scale, and .87
for each individual subscale, which led us to consider the scale an instrument
with fairly satisfactory reliability indexes. Similarly, the factor structure of the
scale using our data coincides fully with the one obtained by Hayamizu and
Weiner. The results regarding reliability and construct validity of the question-
naire coincide entirely with previous studies (Núñez, González-Pienda, Garcı́a,
COGNITIVE, MOTIVATIONAL, AND VOLITIONAL DIMENSIONS OF LEARNING 565

and Cabanach, 1994; Valle, Cabanach, Cuevas, and Núñez, 1996, 1997a; Valle
et al., 1997b).

Evaluation of the Remaining Variables Included in the Model

To evaluate the remaining variables, we developed a questionnaire to gather
information about persistence in academic tasks (Item: “In general, if I have to
solve a problem and I cannot at first try, I try as often as necessary until I
manage to solve it correctly, or at least, I do not give up until I have tried many
times and in very different ways”), the increasable concept of intelligence (Item:
“Intelligence is a series of skills and knowledge that can be increased by one’s
own behavior and by learning”), perceived ability (Item: “I think I have high
ability—skills, intelligence, etc.—for academic work”), the perception of evalu-
ation criteria (Item: “The way I study and learn depends on the way I perceive
I will be examined later on about the knowledge acquired—type of exam”), the
perception of the type of material (Item: “The way I study—the strategies I
use—to learn the academic contents varies depending on the type of material I
am studying—mathematics, history, basic psychology, developmental psychol-
ogy, etc.”), the perception of teaching style (Item: “The professor’s teaching
style in the classroom—more or less formal, traditional, interactive, construc-
tive, etc.—influences the type of study and learning strategy I use for the aca-
demic tasks of that teacher’s subject matter”), and the analysis of the task char-
acteristics (Item: “Before I start working on any academic task, I note the task
characteristics and then decide what kind of study and learning strategy I should
use to carry out the task correctly”). Responses were scored on a 5-point rating
scale (1 = completely disagree, 5 = completely agree), except for causal attribu-
tions (where subjects completed the statement, “In general, I think my achieve-
ment can be attributed to . . .” indicating the extent to which they attributed
their results to their ability, effort, luck, and so forth, on a 5-point scale, ranging
from not at all = 1 to very much = 5), and academic self-concept (measured on
a 5-point scale ranging from very poor = 1 to very good = 5). In the case of past
academic achievement, the students had to indicate their mean global grade in
all the curricular subjects of the current course.
All assessment instruments were administered to the students by three of the
authors in one session, in a classroom during normal academic schedule, always
allowing the students enough time to fill in the instruments appropriately.

Statistical Analyses
Structural equation analysis was employed, as the main purpose of this re-
search was to analyze the viability of a general cognitive-motivational model to
explain the principal cognitive, motivational, and volitional variables involved
566 VALLE, CABANACH, NÚÑEZ, GONZÁLEZ-PIENDA, RODRı́GUEZ, AND PIÑEIRO

in academic learning and academic achievement. This type of analysis is used

to verify the empirical plausibility of the causal relationships that make up the
model or initial theory. A transversal design with observed variables was em-
ployed. For the analyses, we used the LISREL 7 (Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1990)
computer program. To contrast the research model, we followed one of the three
strategies described by Jöreskog and Sörbom (1996): a strictly confirmatory
strategy, wherein a single a priori model is studied.
The variables used in this study are ordinal (as are the great majority of
variables in psychoeducational research), and their distribution is normal or near
normal. Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis
of all the variables. Methodologists consider that the CIs for this kind of vari-
ables in large samples (such as the one used in this study), with regard to skew-
ness and kurtosis, is between +1 and −1 (M skewness = −0.50; M kurtosis =
0.23). Therefore, as seen in Table 1, except for the kurtosis of the variable
internal attribution (2.19), all the variables are within this interval.

Model to Be Contrasted
The basic assumptions of the model and the relationships between the corre-
sponding variables are displayed in Fig. 2. In this causal diagram, which repre-
sents the various types of variables and parameters designating the relationships
between them, we have attempted to follow the basic criteria for type of vari-
able, name, relation between variables, and so forth, according to language and
the various symbols used in causal models. However, in the model we present,
some variables can be considered central to the model: These are the eight
endogenous variables (dependent variables) that are represented in the model
with uppercase letters (Y variables). Similarly, the main effects (β) between
these variables are represented by thick arrows. Exogenous variables—indepen-
dent variables—(X variables) are also included in the model. These variables
reveal various effects (γ) on the endogenous or dependent variables. Possible
correlations (φ-) between the exogenous variables are also shown in the model,
together with the disturbance terms (ζ), representing the effects of possible un-
known variables or measurement errors of endogenous variables.
From a general perspective, in the research model (Fig. 2), it is hypothesized
that:

1. The cause or causes to which students attribute their academic achievements

and academic self-concept are significantly determined by variables such as
their concept of intelligence (variable or stable), perceived competence (to
cope successfully with specific academic tasks), and past academic achieve-
ment.
2. The processes of causal attribution and academic self-concept significantly
 COGNITIVE, MOTIVATIONAL, AND VOLITIONAL DIMENSIONS OF LEARNING

FIG. 2. Graphic representation of the causal model under study. Thin arrows indicate the effects (γ) of exogenous or independent variables
(X variables) on endogenous or dependent variables (Y variables). Thick arrows indicate principal effects (β) between Y variables.
Correlations between exogenous X variables are represented by φ, and disturbance terms by ζ.
567
568 VALLE, CABANACH, NÚÑEZ, GONZÁLEZ-PIENDA, RODRı́GUEZ, AND PIÑEIRO

and directly influence the determination of students’ predominant motiva-

tional orientation (academic goals). Through these two variables, perceived
competence, the concept of intelligence, and past academic achievement also
determine goal orientation, albeit indirectly. On the other hand, students’
type of motivational profile will also be accounted for by the extent to which
they consider the achievement evaluation criteria (what is evaluated and
how), their degree of awareness of specific task characteristics, their degree
of awareness of teaching style (mainly, with regard to the chance to be auton-
omous at school tasks, flexibility in task assignments, the possibility to use
deep cognitive strategies, etc.), as well as the type of curricular contents (that
allow use of higher or lower level cognitive resources).
3. The type of motivational orientation thus established will significantly ac-
count for the use of cognitive strategies (selection, organization, and elabora-
tion) that lead to deep learning. The relation between both variables (motiva-
tional orientation and strategies) should be positive; that is, the higher the
learning motivational orientation, the higher will be the use of the cognitive
strategies needed to carry out comprehensive learning, and vice versa. Con-
versely, the higher the performance motivational orientation, the lower will
be the use of complex cognitive strategies (except when achievement corre-
sponds with learning; that is, what is evaluated is the process and not only the
end product or final result). Similarly, in addition to students’ predominant
motivational orientation, the use of cognitive strategies will also be ac-
counted for by the consideration of the contextual variables mentioned in
item 2.
4. When students possess and use a broad range of cognitive strategies (what,
how, and when to use strategies) that lead to comprehensive and meaningful
learning, and the observed contextual criteria enhance this kind of learning,
students tend to expend a great deal of effort, attention, concentration, and
persistence in coping with difficulties or problems that may come up (which
has to do with the construct of willpower).
5. Finally, the described scenario should lead to corresponding academic
achievement; that is, the more the effort and persistence, the higher the aca-
demic achievement and vice versa.

The model was contrasted using two procedures. On the one hand, analysis of
global model fit to verify the extent to which the hypothesized model correctly
reproduces the relationships of the correlation matrix of the empirical data. The
second procedure was the estimation and analysis of the relationships between
the variables posited in the model. A series of statistical indicators from LISREL
7 was used to ascertain the model fit, among them, goodness-of-fit indexes (GFI
and AGFI), level of statistical significance (p) of chi-square (χ2), and root mean
square residual (RMSR). According to experts in this kind of methodology (Byrne,
COGNITIVE, MOTIVATIONAL, AND VOLITIONAL DIMENSIONS OF LEARNING 569

2001; Marsh and Balla, 1994; Marsh, Balla, and Hau, 1996), when the sample
is large and the distribution of the variables is not normal, goodness-of-fit in-
dexes should be used as preferential criteria to evaluate the fit of the models (in
detriment of chi-square).

RESULTS
The means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis of each of the vari-
ables integrated in the model can be seen in Table 1.

Model Goodness of Fit

To begin with possibly the most demanding criterion to contrast models (level
of significance p), the results of our research revealed no statistically significant
differences between the proposed model and the empirical data, χ2 (48, N = 614) =
42.73, p = .688, which indicates an excellent fit between the hypothesized theo-
retical model and the data. This fit criterion is quite clearly met.
In addition to this evaluation coefficient, various indexes, although less re-
strictive and sensitive to variable deviations from normality than chi-square, are
nonetheless important criteria to ascertain the model fit. We refer to the GFI
and AGFI, with values ranging from 0 to 1, where 1 is the perfect fit. As a
coefficient equal to or larger than .90 is an indication of the fit of the model,

TABLE 1. Means, Standard Deviations, Skewness, and Kurtosis of the Variables

Included in the Model

Variables M Skewness SD Kurtosis

1. Concept of increasable intelligence (X1) 3.91 −0.68 1,04 0.55

2. Perceived ability (X2) 3.96 −0.85 0.84 0.17
3. Past academic achievement (X3) 3.78 −0.50 0.83 0.48
4. Perception of evaluation criteria (X4) 3.62 −0.40 0.99 −0.34
5. Analysis of task characteristics (X5) 3.65 −0.45 1.02 −0.31
6. Perception of teaching style (X6) 3.71 −0.60 1.06 −0.19
7. Perception of curricular content (X7) 3.87 −0.86 1.07 0.14
8. Internal attribution (Y1) 4.07 −0.95 0.72 2.19
9. External attribution (Y2) 2.72 0.16 1.04 −0.47
10. Academic self-concept (Y3) 3.35 0.33 0.60 −0.01
11. Learning goals (Y4) 27.58 −0.09 5.05 0.08
12. Performance goals (Y5) 24.55 −0.91 4.34 0.74
13. Deep learning strategies (Y6) 54.08 −0.37 9.08 0.31
14. Persistence in academic tasks (Y7) 4.12 −0.79 0.93 −0.21
15. Academic achievement (Y8) 3.46 −0.55 0.78 0.27
570 VALLE, CABANACH, NÚÑEZ, GONZÁLEZ-PIENDA, RODRı́GUEZ, AND PIÑEIRO

the proposed model achieves excellent fit (AGFI = .97; GFI = .989), one more
plausibility criterion. It is also noteworthy that the RMSR value is less than .05
(RMSR = .023), indicating that the residuals after comparing the theoretical and
empirical matrixes are not significantly different, which in turn means that the
model obtained is similar to the hypothesized one. Readers are reminded that
the RMSR value approaches zero as the model fit improves.
Taking into account all the above-mentioned evaluation criteria, the proposed
model is plausible. In other words, there is a high degree of correspondence
between the hypothesized model, its theoretical relationships between variables,
and the empirical data.
The determination coefficient (DC), more than an index of the model fit, is a
coefficient offering information about the amount of variance accounted for by
the communal relationships specified in the model. According to the value ob-
tained for the determination coefficient (DC = .52), approximately 52% of the
conjoint endogenous variables is accounted for by the relationships posited in
the model (in the model, coefficients with dashed arrows represent the amount
of unexplained variance in each endogenous variable). The following values
were obtained for these coefficients (see Fig. 2): internal attributions: ζ = .841;
external attributions: ζ = 1.000; academic self-concept: ζ = .738; learning goals:
ζ = .779; performance goals: ζ = .913; deep learning strategies: ζ = .842; persis-
tence in academic tasks: ζ = .834; academic achievement: ζ = .579. Therefore,
in the model, 15.9% of internal attributions is accounted for (in percentage
terms, this difference is the result of subtracting .841 from 1), the model does
not explain external attributions, and 26.2% of academic self-concept, 22.1% of
learning goals, 8.7% of performance goals, 15.8% of deep learning strategies,
16.6% of persistence, and 42.1% of academic achievement are accounted for.

Evaluation of Individual Parameters

Following the strategy of structuring the hypothetical model along three di-
mensions (motivational-affective, cognitive, and volitional), the most relevant
results obtained with regard to specific relations in the model to be contrasted
are presented in Fig. 3.

Motivational-Affective Dimension
In this study, students’ (motivational) goal orientation is differentiated de-
pending on whether they are learning or performance oriented. As hypothesized,
learning orientation is significantly and internally determined by internal causal
attribution (β = .113), increasable concept of intelligence (γ = .144), perceived
ability (γ = .153), and academic self-concept (β = .147). As all these relations
are positive, which indicates that motivational learning orientation will be higher
 COGNITIVE, MOTIVATIONAL, AND VOLITIONAL DIMENSIONS OF LEARNING

FIG. 3. Graphic representation of the results of the causal model under study. Thin arrows indicate the effects of exogenous or independent
variables on endogenous or dependent variables. Thick arrows indicate principal effects (β-values) between endogenous variables. φ-
values indicate correlations between exogenous variables, and ζ-values represent disturbance terms. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
571
572 VALLE, CABANACH, NÚÑEZ, GONZÁLEZ-PIENDA, RODRı́GUEZ, AND PIÑEIRO

as students accept responsibility for their academic achievements, believe that

learning involves increasing competence, trust their ability to learn, and, in gen-
eral, have a positive concept of themselves as students. At the external level,
motivational learning orientation is conditioned by the perception of evaluation
criteria (γ = −.130) and the analysis of task characteristics (γ = .237). The nega-
tive sign in the relation between evaluation criteria and motivational learning
orientation indicates that the more students take evaluation criteria into account,
the lower will be their motivational learning orientation. This seems a contradic-
tion, but it makes sense in our teaching system, because, in practice, teachers’,
parents’, and society’s evaluations generally place more emphasis on achieve-
ment. Nobody asks students “how much you have learned?” but they do ask
them “what was your achievement?” Achievement, and not learning, is reinforced.
When the study method depends on the way students perceive they will be
evaluated, then their hopes of high grades condition their academic performance
patterns, so that they focus on the final result of learning (in terms of grades)
rather than on the learning process itself. These behaviors are similar to what
Biggs (1987) and Entwistle (1987) called, respectively, achievement approach
and strategic approach. This is corroborated by the fact that the relation between
this variable (perception of evaluation criteria) and motivational performance
orientation is positive (γ = .216). Motivational performance orientation is also
accounted for by an external attributional pattern (β = .097: the more achieve-
ments are attributed to external causes, the higher the performance orientation),
as well as by what students do when they learn (that is, the less learning strate-
gies are used, the more a motivational orientation toward results is developed).
All this indicates that, if we want students to feel motivated to learn (learning
goals) in our classrooms, we must undertake teaching processes in which: (a)
learning activities are designed so that, on the one hand, students can learn if
they make an effort and work hard (so they attribute their results to internal
causes) and, on the other hand, activities are within students’ potential ability
(so they feel capable of coping with the activities and, consequently, they make
the effort); (b) evaluation criteria are made explicit and are focused on the learn-
ing activities; that is, more on the process than on the result (this would allow
some control by students over the result obtained); and (c) cognitive processes
and their use are increased.
However, this is not sufficient to develop a motivational learning orientation.
The results of our analysis indicate that all the aforementioned variables, taken
conjointly, are only capable of accounting for 22% of motivational learning
orientation. Consequently, although the variables seem relevant to account for
the students’ type of motivation, there are other variables, such as the family,
and more or less strategic teaching processes, for example (González-Pienda et
al., 2002), not contemplated in this research and that should be taken into ac-
count at schools.
COGNITIVE, MOTIVATIONAL, AND VOLITIONAL DIMENSIONS OF LEARNING 573

Cognitive Dimension
The use of deep cognitive strategies is directly accounted for by a motiva-
tional orientation toward mastery, learning, or the task (β = .270), and indirectly
by internal causal attributional processes (that generate responsibility) via their
incidence on the definition of motivational learning orientation. On the other
hand, the use of these strategies is also directly affected (γ = .151) by the percep-
tion of the specific task characteristics to which these strategies are applied. A
characteristic trait of good information processors is their ability to choose the
appropriate strategies according to task requirements (Borkowski and Muthuk-
rishna, 1992), which means being capable of planning the execution of certain
strategies on the basis of prior analysis of task requirements and nature. These
issues are related to what Paris, Lipson, and Wixson (1983) called “conditional
knowledge,” or knowing why, where, and when to apply strategies (Weinstein
and Hume, 1998). Symons, Snyder, Cariaglia-Bull, and Pressley (1989) ex-
pressed these ideas clearly when they stated
a competent thinker analyzes task situations to determine the strategies that would
be appropriate. A plan is the formed for executing the strategies, and progress during
strategy execution is monitored. In the face of difficulty, ineffective strategies are
abandoned in favor of more appropriate ones. These processes are supported by appro-
priate motivational beliefs and a general tendency to think strategically. (p. 8)

So, analysis of task characteristics influences directly and significantly stu-

dents’ decisions about which strategies to put to use to achieve their goals most
efficiently. Nevertheless, contrary to the postulation, we observed that percep-
tion of teaching style, perception of evaluation criteria, or perception of the type
of curricular material did not significantly influence the use of deep learning
strategies.
Nonetheless, despite the relevance of the type of variables commented on, it
should be noted that, in this model, only 16% of the use of learning strategies
is accounted for. This means that there are many variables involved in the deter-
mination of the psychological processes of learning. Taking this fact into ac-
count will enhance the scientific study of all these variables. Even so, despite
the large amount of variance still unexplained with regard to why students use
more or less strategies in the university, one should not forget the importance
of contemplating the variables we do know are relevant—such as those consid-
ered here and in other studies—when designing teaching activities.

Volitional Dimension
As initially hypothesized, the use of learning strategies within a comprehen-
sive learning situation is positively and significantly associated with persistence
in academic tasks (β = .121). This indicates that the more strategies are used,
574 VALLE, CABANACH, NÚÑEZ, GONZÁLEZ-PIENDA, RODRı́GUEZ, AND PIÑEIRO

the higher will be the degree of effort and persistence in learning. On the other
hand, learning oriented motivation, in addition to its indirect affect via the use of
learning strategies, also directly influences effort and persistence in learning tasks
(β = .188). This indicates that, when learning tasks do not require much use of
learning strategies (i.e., organization, elaboration, etc.), then effort and persistence
are supported by the intrinsic motivational level. Persistence is also directly ac-
counted for by the belief that effort is the cause of achievement (β = .187). At an
external level, it is also conditioned by the result of the analysis of task characteris-
tics (more complex tasks require more persistence than simpler tasks).
However, only 17% of persistence is accounted for, which indicates that this
variable also depends on other variables not reflected in the present study. In
any case, we believe that the relation between the use of strategies and persis-
tence would highly increase as, via instructional processes, learning processes
come to depend on the explicit use of learning strategies. In this case, persis-
tence in the classroom would, to a great extent, be accounted for by this fact,
because persistence would also be much more related to the final achievement.
In this study, as in others, the relation was only .128. This indicates that the
relation between effort or persistence and achievement is not as clear as it
should be (“if I make more effort, I achieve more; if I make less effort, I achieve
less”). This is due to many factors, among which are the type of achievement
evaluated (based more on memory than on understanding) and the low relation
between customary teaching processes and the use of learning strategies (in fact,
they are not usually used in our classrooms).
All this is supported by the fact that students’ grades are directly associated
with variables whose effect should be indirect via the described process. Specifi-
cally, the students who obtained more credit were those who believed more
strongly that their achievement was a consequence of their ability and effort (β =
.237) and also partly, although to a lesser extent, to external causes (β = .106).
Individuals who believed they were good students (β = .275), those who ob-
tained good grades in the past (γ = .259), and, logically, those whose motivation
was “to get a good grade” (β = .075), rather than to learn, obtained more credit
than another one.
From our viewpoint, this is the result of the kind of teaching carried out in
the classroom and of the type of achievement evaluated. Thus, as teaching does
not focus on the use of strategies (which could provide control, self-confidence,
perceived competence associated with the use of these instruments, persistence
when faced with failure, etc.) but rather on content; and achievement is mea-
sured by how many things students know rather than by how students master
knowledge and apply it to new situations; it is logical for high-achieving stu-
dents to believe that this is due to their higher intelligence (as there are other
students who, in the same conditions, are unsuccessful), and to feel they are
good students (and the others are poor students), so they maintain high interest
in continuing, and so forth.
COGNITIVE, MOTIVATIONAL, AND VOLITIONAL DIMENSIONS OF LEARNING 575

We should change teaching processes now. We have sufficient data to know

what to do and what to avoid, and we hope that the results of this research will
contribute more information along these lines.

DISCUSSION
As pointed out in the analysis of the results, the series of causal relationships
specified in the model only accounted for approximately 52% of the total vari-
ance. Although this in no way invalidates the satisfactory model fit, it is an
important limitation in the capacity of the model to explain the causal effects
between its variables. To a certain extent, the results suggest that the empirical
correspondence of the originally posited theoretical relationships between vari-
ables is quite acceptable. However, at the same time, potential changes or varia-
tions in the relationships seem to be determined not only by the variables in-
cluded in the model we analyzed but also by other variables that are absent.
Moreover, not all the endogenous variables considered in the model are ac-
counted for at the same level. Whereas some variables present a relatively high
percentage of accounted-for variance, other variables are only minimally ac-
counted for by the relationships established in the model (for instance, the vari-
able “academic achievement,” for which 58% of the variance is not accounted
for by the causal relationships of the model). According to our research, the
model appears to account for deep learning rather than for academic achieve-
ment.
What is the basis for the above statements? The variable “academic achieve-
ment” is a synonym of academic grades obtained, in other words, the product
of learning that is institutionally evaluated by means of grades (Biggs, 1989).
This should not be confused with the quality and depth of the contents. Being
successful and obtaining good results do not necessarily imply learning, because
many students are successful at the university, but they do not acquire meaning-
ful and permanent knowledge (Romainville, 1994). Quality learning may be
associated with high grades, but frequently, mechanical and repetitious learning
also lead to high grades. Thus, the deep learning-academic achievement differ-
entiation may partially explain why a relatively high percentage of the variance
of academic achievement is not accounted for by the proposed causal relation-
ships.
Even so, in accordance with the fundamental hypotheses of the self-regulation
models reviewed in the posits under study, our model appears to lend support
to the concept that predisposition to accept responsibility for the results of one’s
academic behavior is related to positive self-image as a student. These condi-
tions are important for the development of a significant learning-motivated ori-
entation and the development of personal competence. Of course, this implies
the selection and use of learning strategies aimed at deep information-process-
ing, which in turn leads students to assume responsibility, display high levels
576 VALLE, CABANACH, NÚÑEZ, GONZÁLEZ-PIENDA, RODRı́GUEZ, AND PIÑEIRO

of persistence, perseverance, and the tenacity to achieve the aim of this motiva-
tional orientation. Lastly, this persistence and effort to reach goals has a signifi-
cant and positive effect on academic achievement. However, the effect of persis-
tence would probably be greater if it were related to learning and not to academic
achievement, although this is probably only possible to verify if an experimental
design with a specific learning task (on-line) is employed.
Taking into account our above comments, and reviewing some of the more
relevant results of the analysis of the research model, the present research has
theoretical implications, as well as implications for educational practice. In the
educational practice, we refer especially to cognitive-motivational and volitional
determinants in university students. In line with many studies, perceived ability,
past academic achievement, and students’ concept of intelligence as modifiable
by effort and new learning all contribute to a positive academic self-concept
and a high degree of responsibility for academic results, attributing results to
internal causal factors. All of this has a high influence on the development of
learning-goal-orientated motivation, which in turn leads students to use a series
of strategies adapted to these goals and intentions to achieve highly comprehen-
sive and meaningful learning. At the same time, in the academic context, analy-
sis of task characteristics and requirements (level of difficulty, steps to follow
to solve the problem, cognitive resources, effort, and abilities to be displayed,
etc.) enhance positive results when setting learning-goals, using deep learning
strategies, or increasing levels of persistence and effort during task performance.
On the other hand, some university students’ attributional patterns are charac-
terized by avoiding all responsibility for academic results, and their only motiva-
tion is to achieve good academic results—with no concern for quality of curricu-
lar content. Perceived competence, concept of modifiable intelligence, academic
self-concept, the desire to learn and to improve one’s knowledge, or use of deep
learning strategies do not foster this type of behavior in an academic context.
However, neither self-concept, intrinsic motivation, nor learning strategies are
determined by many of the abovementioned, essentially extrinsic, variables. In
fact, sometimes, some variables hamper or have negative effects on the others.
The aforementioned results are unavoidably associated with the characteristics
of this study (instruments, design, sample, etc.). In our case, a possible research
limitation was the type of design employed. We only have one measurement,
taken at one point in time, of the series of variables taken into account. How-
ever, we attempted to contrast the relationships of these variables in a causal
model. In other words, we used a transversal design to study supposed causal
effects among variables. Strictly speaking, in causal analysis, a temporal se-
quence between two variables is required to establish a cause–effect relation-
ship; that is, the cause-variable should precede the effect-variable in time. This
requirement can only be met when a longitudinal design is employed (MacCal-
lum and Austin, 2000). Thus, for example, it is reasonable to believe that students’
COGNITIVE, MOTIVATIONAL, AND VOLITIONAL DIMENSIONS OF LEARNING 577

current academic achievement may determine future academic self-concept; that

the current level of perceived ability may influence future self-concept; that
current self-concept may affect future academic achievement, and so forth. It is
hard to imagine that these variables would undergo substantial changes in short
periods of time. Therefore, this should be taken into consideration in future
research, and the model should be contrasted using a longitudinal design, for
example, establishing more than two evaluation periods at various time inter-
vals, with different instruments and with a latent variable model. Only then are
we likely to encounter reciprocal relationships (in time) between many of the
variables considered in the model (for example, self-concept and attributions,
self-concept and academic achievement, etc.).
Nevertheless, although some variables in this cognitive-motivational model
are directly related to the instructional context (perception of teaching style, of
the evaluation criteria, etc.), further research of these relations is required to
study them more in depth and more concretely. For example, it should be speci-
fied which teaching styles or which evaluation criteria contribute to the develop-
ment of different motivational orientations, and to the use of certain learning
strategies. Therefore, assuming that neither the cognitive nor the motivational
components are independent of the context, a challenge to future research will
be the specific analysis of the influence of the teaching/learning-process vari-
ables, which are essentially contextual and interpersonal. In fact, it is essential
to study in depth the way students process the instructional situation (for in-
stance, how they perceive the teacher’s expectancies, task characteristics and
requirements, etc.). This is the most important determinant of what they will
learn, even more important than the teacher or other instructional agents (Shuell,
1993).
We refer to research of models of self-regulated “situated” learning. Criticism
from the viewpoint of school learning—specifically, the situated cognition ap-
proach—has been expressed about the excessively decontextualized nature of
cognitive research of learning and has emphasized that the learning process
should take into account the social and cultural context in which learning takes
place (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Pintrich, 1994; Rogoff, 1990).

REFERENCES
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures and student motivation. J. Educ. Psychol.
84: 261–271.
Anderman, E. M., and Young, A. J. (1994). Motivation and strategy use in science:
Individual differences and classroom effects. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 31: 811–831.
Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student Approaches to Learning and Studying, Australian Council
for Educational Research, Hawthorn, Victoria.
Biggs, J. B. (1989). Approaches to the enhancement of tertiary teaching. Higher Educ.
Res. Dev. 8: 7–25.
578 VALLE, CABANACH, NÚÑEZ, GONZÁLEZ-PIENDA, RODRı́GUEZ, AND PIÑEIRO

Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulatd learning: Where are today. Int. J. Educ. Res. 31:
445–458.
Boekaerts, M., and Niemivirta, M. (2000). Self-regulated learning: Finding a balance
between learning goals and ego-protective goals. In: Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R.,
and Zeidner, M. (eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation, Academic Press, San Diego, pp.
417–450.
Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., and Zeidner, M. (2000). Handbook of Self-Regulation,
Academic Press, San Diego.
Borkowski, J. G., and Muthukrishna, N. (1992). Moving metacognition into the class-
room: “Working models” and effective strategy teaching. In: Pressley, M., Harris,
K. R., and Guthrie, J. T. (eds.), Promoting Academic Competence and Literacy in
School, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 477–501.
Byrne, B. (2001). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Covington, M. V. (2000). Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: An integra-
tive review. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 51: 171–200.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. Am. Psychol. 41: 1040–
1048.
Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A., and Gable, S. (1999). Achievement goals, study strategies,
and exam performance: A mediational analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 91: 549–563.
Entwistle, N. J. (1987). Understanding Classroom Learning, Hodder & Stoughton,
London.
Garcı́a, T., and Pintrich, P. R. (1994). Regulating motivation and cognition in the class-
room: The role of self-schemas and self-regulatory strategies. In: Schunk, D. H., and
Zimmerman, B. J. (eds.), Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance: Issues and
Educational Applications, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 127–153.
González-Pienda, J. A., Núñez, J. C., González-Pumariega, S., Álvarez, L., Roces, C.,
and Garcı́a, M. (2002). A estructural equation model of parental involvement, motiva-
tional and aptitudinal characteristics, and academic achievement. J. Exp. Educ. 70:
257–287.
Graham, S., and Golan, S. (1991). Motivational influences on cognition: Task involve-
ment, ego involvement, and depth of information processing. J. Educ. Psychol. 83:
187–194.
Hayamizu, T., and Weiner, B. (1991). A test Dweck’s model of achievement goals as
related to perceptions of ability. J. Exp. Educ. 59: 226–234.
Jöreskog, K. G., and Sörbom, D. (1990). SPSS LISREL 7 and PRELIS: User’s Guide
and Reference, SPSS Inc., Chicago.
Jöreskog, K. G., and Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s Reference Guide, SSI, Chi-
cago.
Kuhl, J. (2000). A functional-design approach to motivation and self-regulation: The
dynamics of personality systems and interactions. In: Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R.,
and Zeidner, M. (eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation, Academic Press, San Diego, pp.
111–170.
Lave, J., and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participa-
tions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
MacCallum, R. C., and Austin, J. T. (2000). Applications of structural equation modeling
in psychological research. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 51: 201–226.
Marsh, H. W., and Balla, J. R. (1994). Goodness of fit in confirmatory analysis: The
effects of sample size and model parsimony. Qual. Quant.: Int. J. Methodol. 28: 185–
217.
Marsh, H. W., and Balla, J. R., and Hau, K. T. (1996). An evaluation of incremental fit
COGNITIVE, MOTIVATIONAL, AND VOLITIONAL DIMENSIONS OF LEARNING 579

indices: A clarification of mathematical and empirical processes. In: Marcoulides,

G. A., and Schumacker, R. E. (eds.), Advanced Structural Equation Modeling Tech-
niques, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 315–353.
Marzano, R. J. (1998). Cognitive, metacognitive, and conative considerations in class-
room assessment. In: Lambert, N. M., and McCombs, B. L. (eds.), How Students
Learn, APA, Washington, DC, pp. 241–266.
Mayer, R. E. (1992). Guiding students’ cognitive processing of scientific information in
text. In: Pressley, M., Harris, K. R., and Guthrie, J. T. (eds.), Promoting Academic
Competence and Literacy in School, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 243–258.
McCombs, B. L. (1998). Integrating metacognition, affect, and motivation in improving
teacher education. In: Lambert, N. M., and McCombs, B. L. (eds.), How Students
Learn, APA, Washington, DC, pp. 379–408.
McCombs, B. L., and Marzano, R. J. (in press). What is the role of the will component
in strategic learning? In: Weinstein, C. E., and McCombs, B. L. (eds.), Strategic
Learning: Skill, Will, and Self-Regulation, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Meece, J. L. (1994). The role of motivation in self-regulated learning. In: Schunk, D. H.,
and Zimmerman, B. J. (eds.), Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance: Issues
and Educational Applications, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 25–44.
Middleton, M. J., and Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demostration of lack of ability:
An underexplored aspect of goal theory. J. Educ. Psychol. 4: 710–718.
Midgley, C., and Urdan, T. (1995). Predictors of middle school students’ use of self-
handicapping strategies. J. Early Adolesc. 15: 389–411.
Murphy, P. K., and Alexander, P. A. (1998). Using the learning and study strategies
inventory-high school version with Singaporean females: examining psychometric
properties. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 58: 493–510.
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective expe-
rience, task choice, and performance. Psychol. Rev. 91: 328–346.
Nolen, S. B. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motivational orientation and study strategies.
Cogn. Instruct. 5: 269–287.
Nolen, S. B., and Haladyna, T. M. (1990). Personal and environmental influences on stu-
dents’ beliefs about effective study strategies. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 15: 116–130.
Núñez, J. C., González-Pienda, J. A., Garcı́a, S., and Cabanach, R. G. (September 1994).
Evaluación de la Motivación de Logro. IV Congreso de Evaluación Psicológica, Santi-
ago de Compostela, Spain.
Olejnik, S., and Nist, S. L. (1992). Identifying latent variables measured by learning and
study strategies inventory (LASSI). J. Exp. Educ. 60: 151–159.
Olivárez, A., and Tallent-Runnels, M. K. (1994). Psychometric properties of the learning
and study strategies inventory-high school version. J. Exp. Educ. 62: 243–257.
Parris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., and Wixson, K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Con-
temporary Educational Psychology 8: 293–316.
Pintrich, P. R. (1994). Continuities and discontinuities: Future directions for research in
Educational Psychology. Educ. Psychol. 29: 137–148.
Pintrich, P. R., and De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning
components of classroom performance. J. Educ. Psychol. 82: 33–40.
Pintrich, P. R., and Garcı́a, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the
college classroom. In: Maher, M. L., and Pintrich, P. R. (eds.), Advances in Motivation
and Achievement (Vol. 7), JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 371–402.
Pintrich, P. R., and Schrauben, B. (1992). Students’ motivational beliefs and their cogni-
tive engagement in classroom academic tasks. In: Schunk, D. H., and Meece, J. L.
(eds.), Student Perceptions in the Classroom, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 149–183.
580 VALLE, CABANACH, NÚÑEZ, GONZÁLEZ-PIENDA, RODRı́GUEZ, AND PIÑEIRO

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in Thinking, Oxford University Press, New York.

Romainville, M. (1994). Awareness of cognitive strategies: The relationship between
university students’ metacognition and their performance. Stud. Higher Educ. 19: 359–
366.
Schneider, W., and Pressley, M. (1989). Memory Development Between 2 and 20,
Springer-Verlag, New York.
Schunk, D. L. (1996). Goal and self-evaluative influences during children’s cognitive
skill learning. Am. Educ. Res. J. 33: 359–382.
Seifert, T. L. (1995). Characteristics of ego- and task- oriented students: A comparison
of two methodologies. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 65: 125–138.
Shuell, T. J. (1993). Toward an integrated theory of teaching and learning. Educ. Psy-
chol. 28: 291–311.
Solé, I. (1993). Disponibilidad para el aprendizaje y sentido del aprendizaje [Availability
for learning and the sense of learning]. In: Coll, C., Martı́n, E., Mauri, T., Miras, M.,
Onrubia, J., Solé, I., and Zabala, A. (eds.), El Constructivismo en el Aula [Constructiv-
ism in the Classroom], Graó, Barcelona, pp. 25–46.
Suárez, J. M., Cabanach, R. G., and Valle, A. (2001). Multiple-goal pursuit and its rela-
tion to cognitive, self-regulatory, and motivational strategies. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 71:
561–572.
Symons, S., Snyder, B. L., Cariglia-Bull, T., and Pressley, M. (1989). Why be optimistic
about cognitive strategy instruction? In: McCormick, C. B., Miller, G. F., and Pressley,
M. (eds.), Cognitive Strategy Research: From Basic Research to Educational Applica-
tions, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 3–32.
Valle, A., Cabanach, R. G., Cuevas, L. M., and Núñez, J. C. (1996). Metas académicas
de los estudiantes universitarios y su relación con otras variables cognitivo-motivacio-
nales. Bol. Psicol. 53: 49–68.
Valle, A., Cabanach, R. G., Cuevas, L. M., and Núñez, J. C. (1997a). Patrones motivaci-
onales en estudiantes universitarios: caracterı́sticas diferenciales. Rev. Invest. Educ.
15: 125–146.
Valle, A., Cabanach, R. G., Cuevas, L. M., Rodrı́guez, S., Baspino, M., and Núñez, J.
C. (1997b). El C.M.A. (Cuestionario de Metas Académicas): Un instrumento para la
evaluación de las metas de estudio de los estudiantes universitarios. Actas del I Con-
greso Luso-Español de Psicologı́a de la Educación, Associaçao dos Psicólogos Portu-
gueses (APPORT), Coimbra, Portugal.
Weinstein, C. E., and Hume, L. M. (1998). Study Strategies for Lifelong Learning, Amer-
ican Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Weinstein, C. E., Schulte, A. C., and Palmer, D. R. (1987). LASSI: Learning and Study
Strategies Inventory, H and H Publishing, Clearwater, FL.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-regulation involves more than metacognition: A sociocog-
nitive perspective. Educ. Psychol. 30: 173–187.

Received March 8, 2002.