P1: KEE

Educational Psychology Review [jepr] PP1126-edpr-481499 March 17, 2004 21:4 Style file version June 4th, 2002

Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 16, No. 2, June 2004 (°

C 2004)

A Discussion of Future Time Perspective

Dennis M. McInerney1,2

A growing area of research in educational psychology is future time perspec-

tive and its relationship to desired educational outcomes. This article discusses
and critiques five reviews of current research on future time perspective. Key
questions addressed are when do individuals begin to articulate a future, how
far into the future does this articulation extend, what is the nature of the fu-
ture that individuals articulate for themselves, what is the relationship between
future time perspective and other important psychological processes such as
motivation and self-regulation, what is the relationship of future time perspec-
tive to gender, culture, and socioeconomic status, and how does future time
perspective change over time as individuals grow and develop intellectually
and socially? These key questions are fundamental to understanding the rele-
vance and usefulness of future time perspective for interpreting and explaining
variations in educational achievement across diverse group of learners inter-
nationally.
KEY WORDS: future time perspective; motivation; gender; self-regulation; cultural
differences.

It seems reasonable to assume that a sense of purpose for the future

is important in motivating individuals to engage in activities perceived to
be instrumental in achieving valued future outcomes. A number of ques-
tions immediately come to mind when such an assumption is put forward.
For example, when do individuals begin to articulate a future; how far into
the future does this articulation extend; do individuals vary in their atten-
tion to the future depending on their gender, culture, and socioeconomic
status; what are the important and essential components of this future;

1 University of Western Sydney, SELF Research Centre, Sydney, Australia.

2 Correspondence should be addressed to Dennis M. McInerney, University of Western Sydney,
Locked Bay 1797, Penrith South DC, 1797, Australia; e-mail: d.mcinerney@uws.edu.au.

141
1040-726X/04/0600-0141/0 °
C 2004 Plenum Publishing Corporation
P1: KEE
Educational Psychology Review [jepr] PP1126-edpr-481499 March 17, 2004 21:4 Style file version June 4th, 2002

142 McInerney

and do these components change as individuals get older and get

“schooled”?
Each one of these questions has associated sub-issues. For example,
we know from early Piagetian research that children gradually develop a
sense of history and time, and that children in the early years of school are
still developing a sense of the past and future (McInerney and McInerney,
2002; Piaget, 1954). We would anticipate that by the late concrete opera-
tions stage and into the formal operations stage most individuals have a
reasonably well-developed sense of the future. This would coincide, in most
cases, with children being in middle high school. It is an interesting point,
therefore, to examine whether children in middle and high school do, in fact,
articulate a sense of the future and whether the clarity of this articulation
increases as they progress through school. Furthermore, Piagetian research
results are largely derived from Western research. We should be mindful,
therefore, that a sense of future may be a culture bound construct. For ex-
ample, in traditional societies the past and present may be more salient than
the future, and this may be particularly true in societies that have historically
been subsistence agricultural societies or nomadic herders (see, for example,
McInerney et al., 1997, 1998a). So the extension of research on future time
perspective to non-Western groups is important, rather than assuming that
thinking about the future is universally important and valued.
A second issue is how far into the future do time perspectives extend
and what factors influence this. It is most probable that younger children ex-
tend less than older children, and perhaps adults. There is logic behind this
proposition, but it is, nevertheless, an empirical question to be addressed.
Perhaps there is an upper limit on how far people think ahead and conceptu-
alize a future. Several factors probably influence time perspective extension
including: the complexity of the society in which an individual lives and what
the society values (for example, contributing to the progressive development
of the society, preserving the status quo, etc.), perceived opportunities that
need to be planned for in a given society, parental influences, technology,
spirituality, and many other features of the sociohistorical milieu of indi-
viduals. In this context, it is also of interest to question to what degree are
individuals willing to delay satisfaction of short-term needs in order to satisfy
longer-term needs. Of course, each of these issues could be moderated by
gender and a particular society’s expectations for boys and girls. Hence, it is
important to also examine whether there are differences between the sexes
on future time perspective, although it is probably better to refer to gender
differences, as they are more likely to reflect socialization processes rather
than biological differences.
A third issue is the nature of the future that children articulate for them-
selves. Ours is a rapidly changing world that is radically different from the
P1: KEE
Educational Psychology Review [jepr] PP1126-edpr-481499 March 17, 2004 21:4 Style file version June 4th, 2002

Discussion 143

world in which baby boomers grew-up as children and adolescents. What do

children today see as their future? It was common with earlier generations
to have a relatively predictable future that included some schooling, further
education for a limited number of individuals, assured work in a career or
trade that would be the career or trade for one’s entire working life, mar-
riage, family, retirement, and pensions. How much of this predictable future
exists for children today, and how much impact does the rapidity of change
and lack of certainty about the future influence future time perspective?
Among the many possibilities are two potential reactions: children could be
more concerned and involved about their future and look to instrumental
opportunities (such as schooling) to realize a future characterized by rapid
change; alternatively, because of the uncertainty and fluidity of the future,
children could be unconcerned and take a laissez faire approach and become
detached, perhaps even alienated.
Kauffman and Husman have gathered a distinguished group of schol-
ars, who, over the past two issues of Educational Psychology Review, have
addressed many of these issues with the hopes of stimulating discussion
and extending a research agenda into the future. The article by Simons,
Lens, Dewitte, and Vansteenkikste (this issue) examines the motivational
role of the future by considering what effect long- and short-term future
time perspective has for individuals. For Simons et al., thinking about the fu-
ture includes situating motivational goals, plans, and projects and directing
present actions toward goals in the future. They refer to this as a particu-
larly important cognitive element. Together with the utility value of what
one is doing to achieve these desired future goals and the importance placed
on achieving these goals, this cognitive element is dynamic and a potent
mix influencing motivation and achievement. In essence, Simons et al. ar-
gue that there is a strong relationship between length of FTP and the per-
ceived utility of what one is doing. Specifically individuals with a longer
future time perspective perceive their present behavior as more instrumen-
tal in achieving a broader range of both immediate and future goals and
the perceived value of present task activity is consequently higher. Con-
versely, individuals with short FTP are less able to articulate future goals
and hence see less value in activities in which they may be currently en-
gaged and which may be considered “detached” from the real world of their
experiences.
In their more recent work reviewed in their article, Simons, Lens,
Dewitte, and Vansteenkikste examine the motivational role of the future
by experimentally examining the interrelationships among motivation, goal
orientation, and performance in a variety of academic and nonacademic ar-
eas. In particular, they consider the differential influences on motivation,
deep or surface learning, and goal orientation (task or ego oriented) of four
P1: KEE
Educational Psychology Review [jepr] PP1126-edpr-481499 March 17, 2004 21:4 Style file version June 4th, 2002

144 McInerney

different types of instrumentality: high and low utility with external versus
internal regulation. In general, Simons et al. believe that tasks that have high
utility and internal valence result in more motivated task-oriented behav-
ior and deeper learning than any of the other combinations of utility and
internality/externality. Studies conducted by the authors provide empirical
support for their beliefs about the direction of the effects. To further extend
the boundaries of research on FTP Simons et al. also considered links be-
tween self-determination theory and FTP by examining the impact of future
intrinsic versus future extrinsic goals and examining autonomy supportive
versus controlling contexts. Their research shows that future intrinsic goal
framing positively affects learning, performance, and persistence at activities.
As with intrinsic future goal framing, autonomy-supportive contexts pro-
duced beneficial effects in comparison with controlling contexts, and these
two conditions (intrinsic and autonomy supportive) have a synergistic power
producing positive effects on deep level learning, autonomous motivation,
and performance. The final section of the article contains a number of use-
ful implications. Overall, it is apparent that the variables reviewed are, to a
large extent, under the control of teachers, and hence can be manipulated
to enhance the perceived utility of school and enhance student learning and
motivation.
In a 5-year longitudinal study of school motivation comparing Native
Americans and Anglo Americans (McInerney et al., 1998), I examined the
reasons why some students appear more or less motivated than other stu-
dents, and what were the trajectories in the development of motivation as
students progressed from middle school to senior high school. My results
provide strong support for many of the contentions of Simons et al. Un-
motivated students found schooling, particularly at the middle school level,
boring and irrelevant. Middle school seemed to be an alienating experience
for many students. They did not perceive a clear link between the value of
education and future goals. Indeed, students often commented that middle
school was a “black hole” in which they saw little purpose. Students did
not connect to future benefits of completing school such as employability.
The school was unsuccessful in helping many students plan, set goals, and
understand what is needed to be successful in accomplishing future goals.
On a number of key indicators of future orientation such as “values in life,”
“success in life,” and “achievements,” many students gave the impression
that they were not yet at the stage where thinking about the future was rele-
vant. In other words, many students gave an initial impression of not caring
about education and the future. A number of students, however, clearly ar-
ticulated future goals and these goals acted as guiding rules for their present
involvement in school and directed them toward the future. Most of these
future-oriented students projected themselves into a college course and a
P1: KEE
Educational Psychology Review [jepr] PP1126-edpr-481499 March 17, 2004 21:4 Style file version June 4th, 2002

Discussion 145

career, had some idea what they would be doing in 10 years, and felt they
had considerable control over their future destinies. Most of the students
valued what they were setting out to achieve. It was also apparent from the
interviews that, in general, students became more positive toward schooling
as they progressed from middle to high school. High school was perceived by
many as providing more scope for the individual, more interesting and rel-
evant curriculum, and having better teaching. Many respondents suggested
that the reason for their change in perception about the value of school was
their growth in maturity and their clearer understanding of the link between
education and their future. Many of the Native American students indicated
that the reason they wanted to do well at school was so they “don’t become
bums” like many on the reservation and because they wanted to make a
better life for themselves.
The article by Greene and DeBacker (this issue) examines gender dif-
ferences in representations of the future and their links to task engagement,
persistence, and performance. As suggested above, it is likely that individu-
als vary in their attention to the future depending on their gender, culture,
socioeconomic status, and sociohistorical milieu. In many developed coun-
tries, considerable social, political, and economic effort has been put into
equalizing education, employment, and social opportunities for men and
women through antisexist education programs, equal employment opportu-
nity legislation, positive discrimination policies, and so on. For this reason,
one could speculate that representations of the future for boys and girls
should be converging.
Earlier research reviewed by Greene and DeBacker supported the
stereotypical belief that women had different achievement motivation and
life expectations than men, depending on the relevance of the specific
achievement task to females and the element of competitiveness-social ori-
entation embedded in tasks. In the “real world” at that time, opportunities
were constrained for females in many careers, and research results paralleled
this. These differences between the sexes reflect the sociohistorical milieu ex-
isting in the 1960s and 1970s where sharply differentiated sex roles were still
prevalent in developed societies. Considerable research continues to show
that females are, in general, less competitive and more socially/altruistically
oriented than males. Recent research on future time perspective, reviewed
by the authors, reveals that males report more hopes and fears into the future
in the career domain whereas females report more socially oriented hopes
and fears. These effects were moderated by socioeconomic status. Indeed,
the interactions between gender, age, parenting, socioeconomic status, and
culture, as reviewed in this article, are quite involved, revealing once more
that motivation is complex with roots deeply embedded in the sociocultural
and family environments of children.
P1: KEE
Educational Psychology Review [jepr] PP1126-edpr-481499 March 17, 2004 21:4 Style file version June 4th, 2002

146 McInerney

One recent finding of note is that, apart from the period devoted to rais-
ing families, adolescent males and females had similar life-course expecta-
tions. This finding suggests that there has been a convergence in achievement
motivation since the 1960s, although research also suggests that females are
more anxious about achieving career and other life milestones because of
their hiatus while raising a family. It also appears that females have more
variety and complexity in their life goals than males. Males appear more
relaxed about a more limited range of life goals, which are extended further
into the future than are females’ life goals. Greene and DeBacker suggest
that the most adaptive pattern of future time orientations for both genders in
today’s world is a wider variety of goals extended into the future. The article
also suggests that changes are occurring in females’ and males’ expectations
and valuing of success, in “outside” sex-stereotyped activities. This suggests
that nonsexist education programs and equal employment opportunity pro-
grams may be having some effect. Having said this, gender differences, such
as those on extension and density of goals for the future, still exist and are
probably most influenced by the sociocultural climate in which children are
raised. The authors make a number of useful suggestions regarding strate-
gies to further ameliorate the negative influences of these stereotypes that
appear to limit the life opportunities of some children. The importance of
valued future goals and the instrumental value of school are emphasized.
Sense of purpose for the future also implies that individuals can de-
lay credit or gratification in present activities in order to apply the cred-
its in the future. In a sense, for future-oriented individuals, achievement
rewards for present tasks become secondary to the cumulative reward of
achieving future goals. Do future time oriented individuals have a greater
capacity to regulate their behavior and to delay gratification in order to
obtain future goals than nonfuture time oriented individuals? The article
by Bembenutty and Karabenick (Issue 1) addresses this issue by examin-
ing complex theoretical relationships among self-regulated behavior, future
time perspective, and delay of gratification. The authors suggest that stu-
dents delay gratification depending on the perceived value of the delayed
alternative and the individual’s self-perception of his or her ability to obtain
the distal goal. Bembenutty and Karabenick emphasize that an important
volitional component exists in what students do. Once the decision to delay
gratification is made, then a series of cognitive and resource management
strategies are called into play by students to obtain the distal goal. How-
ever, as the authors also emphasize, this process is dependent on students
valuing and believing they can achieve the delayed goal above the satis-
faction of a more immediate alternative. Issues relating to the perceived
instrumentality of specific tasks and the intrinsic and extrinsic reward sys-
tems operating further complicate this process. Benbenutty and Karabenick
P1: KEE
Educational Psychology Review [jepr] PP1126-edpr-481499 March 17, 2004 21:4 Style file version June 4th, 2002

Discussion 147

suggest that students whose time perspective extends to distant future goals
embed their self-regulatory activity within a longer time frame, have a more
elaborated set of goals, and perceive greater instrumentality in reaching
them. The authors developed the Academic Delay of Gratification Scale
(ADOGS) to examine the relationship between delay of gratification and
other forms of self-regulation. Students are presented a series of scenarios of-
fering the satisfaction of a short-term versus a long-term goal. Research using
the ADOGS generally shows that students who are able to delay gratifica-
tion are also more likely to use a range of cognitive and behavior regulatory
strategies.
It is apparent from the Benbenutty and Karabenick article that con-
siderable work must be done on the etiology of delay of gratification. It is
not clear when it develops (adults and children are obviously quite differ-
ent in their ability to delay gratification), how it develops, and what factors
influence its development. Another issue that remains unclear is the causal
relationship that might exist between self-regulation and delay of gratifi-
cation. Which comes first? Does an individual’s proclivity to self-regulate,
control, and monitor one’s self predispose one to a future time perspective?
Or does a future time perspective, which necessitates the development of
self-regulation as a means of reaching future goals, come first?
Miller and Brickman (Issue 1) develop the theme of self-regulation in
their article as well by considering future time perspective as it relates to
the social–cognitive perspective on self-regulation and to theories of more
future-oriented self-regulation. In a nutshell, Miller and Brickman propose
that holding valued future goals is important to individuals because these
future goals help give meaning to school tasks. In other words, tasks that
are set in a future-oriented context, such as striving for a career or making
a contribution to society, have enhanced instrumental value and hence en-
hanced motivational value. Furthermore, valued future goals help orient an
individual’s self-regulatory behavior (including marshalling cognitive strate-
gies) to achieve both the subgoals and the ultimate future goal. Miller and
Brickman therefore emphasize, in contrast to a number of other theoretical
perspectives, the importance of a future time perspective in self-regulation
and achieving short-term goals. What is the evidence in support of the impor-
tance of future goals in the structure of proximal goals and self-regulation
to achievement and motivation? The authors provide considerable evidence
that future goals indeed play a pivotal role in giving a sense of purpose and
direction to activities in which students choose to invest themselves. Ac-
cording to Miller and Brickman, without this future time perspective many
activities that might otherwise seem intrinsically or extrinsically motivational
in the short term are relatively “hollow” in garnering a real commitment to
learning.
P1: KEE
Educational Psychology Review [jepr] PP1126-edpr-481499 March 17, 2004 21:4 Style file version June 4th, 2002

148 McInerney

A major strength of Miller and Brickmans’ theorizing is its empha-

sis that personally valued future goals, the resulting structure of subgoals
and self-regulation, and perceptions of self-efficacy are only understood in
the sociocultural context of each individual. Naturally, this includes experi-
ences students have at school and home. A further strength of Miller and
Brickmans’ theorizing is that it is heuristic for both research and practical
applications in educational settings.
My own research (e.g., McInerney et al., 1998) supports many of the
contentions of Miller and Brickman. I found that students who were moti-
vated and achieving at school clearly articulated the reasons why they were
at school and also described the trajectory they wished to take after leaving
school. This clarity of focus on the future increased for many students as they
progressed through the grades. In general, Anglo American students more
clearly articulated their future goals than did students from Native American
backgrounds. Native American students indicated that the reason they were
at school was that “they had to or they would be punished” or “they had
to, to get their per capita.” Native American students, in particular, needed
help in clarifying their “world view.” Although many Native American stu-
dents gave an initial impression of not caring about education and the future,
that impression was really the result of weak verbal fluency. Through careful
probing of ideas, I was able to uncover in many individuals a wealth of be-
liefs and values about the present and future that were not being articulated.
From this experience, I believe that counsellors and teachers need to help
students think through their ideas, relate them to present and future goals,
and discover the instrumental route to this future. Given that future goal
perspective is so important, it is essential to study the age at which future
goal perspective becomes articulated and important to individuals.
The article by Phalet, Andriessen, and Lens (Issue 1) focuses on one of
the questions in my introduction, “Do individuals vary in their attention to
the future depending on their culture?” by examining the impact of future
goals on motivation and learning in multicultural classrooms. Schooling is
an international phenomenon and if one went from classroom to classroom
in countries as diverse as Japan, Norway, Australia, and Egypt, one would
notice that the similarities are more striking than the differences. Further-
more, if one visited schools serving ethnic minority students, such as Abo-
riginal Australians, Navajo Native Americans, and Maori New Zealanders,
within larger societies, one would also notice that the structures and pur-
poses of schooling are broadly similar across groups. As Phalet, Andriessen,
and Lens point out, schooling is a future-oriented investment. In all these
diverse communities, there is a common focus on preparing children for
the future. But it is a moot point whether this common focus is cultur-
ally or economically universally appropriate. I have been told during many
P1: KEE
Educational Psychology Review [jepr] PP1126-edpr-481499 March 17, 2004 21:4 Style file version June 4th, 2002

Discussion 149

interviews with indigenous people that schooling, at least as presented in

mainstream schools, is relatively irrelevant to both indigenous and other
minority groups because its structures and purposes are not in harmony
with their cultural values. This mismatch is often used to explain the poor
performance of many minority groups (McInerney, 1989, 1991). Among
the features of Western schooling that are sometimes considered incom-
patible are schools’ emphases on the future and individualism. Indeed, in
some collectivist societies an emphasis on individual preparation for the
future might be considered inappropriate, whereas in some traditional com-
munities thinking about the future might be considered taboo (McIner-
ney and Swisher, 1995). The instrumental value of school may be further
called into question as a preparation for the future when entrenched so-
cial, economic, cultural, religious, and political factors severely circumscribe
life opportunities for members of particular ethnic and minority groups
(McInerney, 1989, 1991). In Phalet, Andriessen, and Lens’ terms, the fu-
ture may fail to motivate minority children because there is not a clear
positive connection between doing well in school and success in future life,
and because minority children may not experience future goals as inter-
nally driven but rather externally controlled (in my terms, lacking cultural
relevance).
So what do Phalet, Andriessen, and Lens suggest as possibilities in the
interaction among future goals, schooling, and achievement? In the context
of children whose parents have immigrated to new “host” countries, some
research suggests that there is a clear and strong link between strength of
future orientation and school success—often referred to as the immigrant op-
timism hypothesis. Adapting to, and adopting the values of the host society,
particularly in the context of the instrumental value of school in achieving
valued future goals, helps overcome other social and economic disadvan-
tages (that may otherwise limit life opportunities) and predict success for
children of immigrants. However, other research suggests that although the
instrumental value of school might be “mouthed” by most communities, its
true valuing may be undermined by the belief that schooling is, in reality, ir-
relevant to improving present and future life chances because of entrenched
sociopolitical forces. This belief is often referred to as the attitude achieve-
ment paradox. Finally, Phalet, Andriessen, and Lens suggest that the instru-
mentality of schooling for achieving future goals may be undermined when
there is a clash of cultural values in what defines an appropriate present and
future. This is further complicated by a whole host of other demographic
features such as the parents’ level of education, family support for educa-
tion, social mobility, level of biculturalism, and so on. As I remarked earlier,
the roots of motivation lie deeply buried in the sociocultural background of
each individual.
P1: KEE
Educational Psychology Review [jepr] PP1126-edpr-481499 March 17, 2004 21:4 Style file version June 4th, 2002

150 McInerney

In an attempt to disentangle the potential effects of sociocultural ele-

ments on future goals, student motivation, and achievement, Phalet,
Andriessen, and Lens propose a developmental framework that specifically
addresses four components: incentive value, instrumentality, internality, and
externality. Research supports the contention that holding internally regu-
lated future goals is important, specifically when schooling is perceived as
instrumental in achieving these valued future goals. Their value comes in en-
hancing students’ intrinsic interest in schoolwork and their use of effective
learning strategies. Motivation and strategies combine to boost learning and
self-regulation in the classroom.
Phalet, Andriessen, and Lens also address the apparent contradiction
between the value of future goals and intrinsic motivation. In a longitudi-
nal study of school motivation, Herb Marsh, Alex Yeung, and I (McInerney
et al., in press) examine the multidimensional and hierarchical nature of
school motivation. Our results show that one’s Sense of Purpose (repre-
sented by statements such as “I try hard to do well as school to have a good
job when I leave,” and “I want to do well at school so that I can have a
good future”) relates to one’s Effort (“I work hard to try to understand
new things at school”) and to Task (“I like to see that I am improving in
my schoolwork”). Because both these latter dimensions reflect an intrinsic
orientation, it seems to me that there is no necessary contradiction between
having a future orientation for performing current tasks and being intrin-
sically motivated. Indeed, it seems that having a future orientation is more
likely than not to enhance intrinsic motivation for a proximal task.
At the beginning of this article I asked a number of questions to chal-
lenge the relevance and usefulness of future time perspective to interpreting
and explaining differentials in educational achievement outcomes across
very diverse groups of learners internationally. In particular, I asked when
do individuals begin to articulate a future, how far into the future does this
articulation extend, what is the nature of the future that individuals articulate
for themselves, what is the relationship to between future time perspective
and other important psychological processes such as motivation and self-
regulation, what is the relationship of future time perspective to gender,
culture, and socio-economic status, and how does future time perspective
change over time as individuals grow and develop intellectually and socially?
The reviewed articles present a comprehensive review of the state of the art
in future time perspective theory and research, and address many of these
issues. However, questions also remain, and I hope that my analysis leads
the reader and researchers to connect with the issues to further challenge
the future time perspective research. For example, a disappointing feature
of the review articles is the apparent paucity of research examining the role
of FTP among a variety of non-Western cultural groups, which means that
P1: KEE
Educational Psychology Review [jepr] PP1126-edpr-481499 March 17, 2004 21:4 Style file version June 4th, 2002

Discussion 151

many questions remain unaddressed and unanswered. Hopefully someone

will take up the challenge.

REFERENCES

McInerney, D. M. (1989). Urban Aboriginals parents’ views on education: A comparative anal-

ysis. J. Intercult. Stud. 10: 43–65.
McInerney, D. M. (1991). Key determinants of motivation of urban and rural non-traditional
Aboriginal students in school settings: Recommendations for educational change. Aust. J.
Educ. 35: 154–174.
McInerney, D. M. (1992). Cross-cultural insights into school motivation and decision making.
J. Intercult. Stud. 13: 53–74.
McInerney, D. M., Hinkley, J., Dowson, M., and Van Etten, S. (1998). Aboriginal, Anglo, and
Immigrant Australian students’ motivational beliefs about personal academic success: Are
there cultural differences? J. Educ. Psychol. 90: 621–629.
McInerney, D. M., Marsh, H. W., and Yeung, A. (2003). Toward a hierarchical goal theory of
school motivation. J. Appl. Meas. 4: 1–23.
McInerney, D. M., and McInerney, V. (2002) Educational Psychology: Constructing Learning,
3rd edn., Prentice-Hall, Sydney.
McInerney, D. M., McInerney, V., Bazeley, P., and Ardington, A. (1998b). Parents, peers, cultural
values and school processes: What has most influence on motivating indigenous minority
students’ school achievement? A qualitative study. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, April 13–17. ERIC.
McInerney, D. M., Roche, L., McInerney, V., and Marsh, H. W. (1997). Cultural perspectives
on school motivation: The relevance and application of goal theory. Am. Educ. Res. J. 34:
207–236.
McInerney, D. M., and Swisher, K. (1995). Exploring Navajo motivation in school settings. J.
Am. Indian Educ. 33: 28–51.
Piaget, J. (1954). The Construction of Reality in the Child, M. Cook (trans.), Basic Books, New
York.