Motivation in School ECCLES

The Development of Children's Motivation in School Contexts
Author(s): Allan Wigfield, Jacquelynne S. Eccles and Daniel Rodriguez

Source: Review of Research in Education, Vol. 23 (1998), pp. 73-118
Published by: American Educational Research Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1167288
Accessed: 30-03-2015 20:34 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
American Educational Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Review of
Research in Education.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 200.52.254.249 on Mon, 30 Mar 2015 20:34:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Chapter3
The Developmentof Children'sMotivation
in School Contexts
ALLANWIGFIELD
Universityof Maryland
S. ECCLES
JACQUELYNNE
Universityof Michigan
DANIELRODRIGUEZ
Universityof Maryland
OVERVIEW
Research on studentmotivation has burgeonedin the last 20 years. We have
learned much about the natureof students' motivation, how it develops, how it
relatesto students'school performance,andhow it is influencedby differentteacher
practices, classroom environments,and school environments(for reviews of the
researchon motivation,see Eccles, Wigfield,& Schiefele, 1998;Pintrich& Schunk,
1996). Very broadly,motivationtheorists are interestedin the "whys"of human
behavior:what moves people to act (see Weiner,1992). In termsof school performance, researchersstudyingschool motivationlook at factorssuch as the choices
studentsmake aboutwhich academicactivitiesto do, theirpersistencein continuing the activities, and the degree of effort they expend.
But what determinesindividuals' choices, effort, and persistence at different
academic activities? Over the last 25 years, many motivation researchershave
focusedon students'self-perceptionsandinterestsandon how theirself-perceptions
andinterestsregulatetheirachievementbehaviors,such as choice, persistence,and
performance(Eccles et al., 1998; Pintrich& Schunk, 1996; Renninger,Hidi, &
Krapp,1992; Schunk& Meece, 1992; Schunk& Zimmerman,1994). Because of
this emphasison self variables,much of the researchon motivationhas focused on
motivationas a characteristicof the individual.However,therehas been increasing
recognition of the importanceof social influences on learning and motivation
(Eccles et al., 1998; Marshall, 1992; McCaslin & Good, 1996).
Indeed, many researchersand theoristsnow posit that learningis an inherently
social activity (Marshall,1992; McCaslin& Good, 1996; Shuell, 1996; Vygotsky,
The writing of this chapterwas supportedin partby a grantfrom the SpencerFoundationto Allan
Wigfield andby GrantHD17553 fromthe NationalInstitutefor ChildHealthandHumanDevelopment
to JacquelynneS. Eccles, Allan Wigfield, Phyllis Blumenfeld,and Rena Harold.The views expressed
are solely the responsibilityof the authors.
73
74
Reviewof Researchin Education,23
1978). Learningin classrooms is not done in isolation; instead, it occurs in the

context of relationshipswith teachersandpeers (Webb& Palincsar,1996). These
relationships,along with the differentroles thatemerge for studentsand teachers
in variousclassrooms,stronglyinfluencehow studentslearn.Furthermore,opportunitiesfor socialinteractionsaroundlearninghavebeenshownto improvechildren's
achievementin readingand other areas (e.g., Guthrieet al., 1996; Slavin, 1996).
This more social conceptualizationof learning has importantimplications for
conceptualizationsof motivation(see Hickey, 1997) and how children'smotivation develops. It is increasinglyclearthatthe social organizationof classroomsand
schools, andchildren'sinteractionswith peersandteachers,have majorinfluences
on students'motivation(Eccles et al., 1998; Juvonen& Wentzel, 1996; Maehr&
Midgley, 1996; Ryan & Stiller, 1991).
In this chapter,we discuss how the social organizationof classroomsandgroup
processes in classroomsinfluence studentmotivation.We begin the chapterwith
a review of some of the crucial constructsprevalentin currentmotivationtheory
and discuss how children'smotivationdevelops duringthe school years. Because
of space limitations,our review of these topics is relatively brief. More detailed
reviews of this work can be found in Eccles et al. (1998), Pintrichand Schunk
(1996), andWeiner(1992). We then discuss the influence of differentsocial organizations of classrooms on students' motivation,focusing especially on teacher
practicesand classroomstructureand how they influence motivation.To complement the section on the developmentof motivation,we next discuss how school
structureschange as childrenmove from elementaryinto secondaryschool and
how such changesaffect students'motivation.Finally,we considerthe peer group
andmotivation.It is importantto note at the outsetthat,in this chapter,we consider
motivationin two fundamentalways. In the first section, we focus on how motivationinfluencesstudents'behaviors;thus,motivationis the causalvariable.In the
sections on socialization, we focus on factors that influence motivation; thus,
motivationas an outcome is considered.
THENATUREOF STUDENTMOTIVATION
Researchersnow have assessed many differentconstructsthat are crucial aspects of students'motivation.To organizeour discussion of these constructs,we
separatetheminto two broadgroups(see also Eccles et al., 1998). One set involves
self-perceptionconstructsthatinclude individuals'sense of theircompetenceand
agency to achievedifferentoutcomes.Anotherset concernsthe purposesindividuals have for engaging in differentactivities and theirinterestin and valuing of the
activities. We begin with the first set of constructs.
Individuals' Sense of Competence and Control

Abilityand Efficacy Beliefs
Many researchersinterestedin motivation (e.g., Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1997;
Eccles et al., 1983; Nicholls, 1984, 1990; Wigfield, 1994) focus on students'beliefs about their ability and efficacy to performachievementtasks as crucial mo-
Wigfield,Eccles, and Rodriguez:Children'sMotivation 75

tivationalmediatorsof achievementbehavior.Ability beliefs arechildren'sevaluations of their competence in differentareas. Researchershave documentedthat
children'sand adolescents' ability beliefs relate to and predicttheir performance
in differentachievementdomains such as math and reading,even when previous
performanceis controlled (e.g., Eccles et al., 1983; Meece, Wigfield, & Eccles,
1990; Nicholls, 1979a). A constructrelatedto individuals' ability beliefs is their
expectancies for success. Expectanciesrefer to children'ssense of how well they
will do on an upcomingtask, insteadof their generalbelief of how good they are
at the task (see Stipek, 1984). These beliefs also predictchildren'sperformanceon
differenttasks;when childrenthinkthey can accomplisha task,they aremorelikely
to do so.
Bandura's(1977, 1997) constructof self-efficacy also deals with individuals'
expectanciesaboutbeing able to do tasks;however,Banduradefined self-efficacy
as a generativecapacityin which differentsubskills are organizedinto courses of
action (see also Schunk, 1991). Bandura(1977) proposed that individuals' efficacy expectationsfor differentachievementtasks are a majordeterminantof activity choice, willingnessto expendeffort,andpersistence(see also Bandura,1997).
In work with school-agedchildren,Schunkandhis colleagues (see Schunk, 1991,
for a review) have clearly demonstratedthat students'sense of efficacy relates to
their academic performance(see also Zimmerman,Bandura,& Martinez-Pons,
1992). They also have shown thattrainingstudentsboth to be moreefficacious and
to believe they are more efficacious improvestheir achievementin differentsubject areas such as math and reading.
Researchersinterestedin competenceandefficacy beliefs currentlyaredebating
the similaritiesanddifferencesbetweenthese belief constructs(see Pajares,1996).
This debate will provide importantdefinitionalclarity to these constructs.However,for ourpurposes,the generalconclusionfromthis workis thatwhen individuals have a positive sense of their ability and efficacy to do a task, they are more
likely to choose to do the task, persist at it, and maintaintheireffort.Efficacy and
competencebeliefs predictfutureperformanceand engagementeven when previous performanceis taken into account.
Controland AutonomyBeliefs
Researchersinterested in individuals' control beliefs initially made a major
distinctionbetweeninternalandexternallocus of control(e.g., Crandall,Katkovsky,
& Crandall, 1965; Rotter, 1954). Internalcontrol means the individualbelieves
that he or she controlsthe outcome;externalcontrolmeans the outcome is determined by other things. Researchershave confirmedthe positive association between internallocus of controland academicachievement(see Findley & Cooper,
1983) and elaboratedbroaderconceptualmodels of control (e.g., Connell, 1985;
Weiner, 1979, 1985). Connell (1985), for example, added unknowncontrol as a
thirdcontrolbelief categoryandarguedthatyoungerchildrenareparticularlylikely
to use this category. Weiner included locus of control as one of the crucial dimensions in his attributiontheory. Skinner (1995) defined several kinds of perceived control beliefs and emphasizedthe importanceof perceived contingency
76
between individuals' actions and their success for developing positive motivation.
Connell and Wellborn(1991) integratedcontrolbeliefs into a broadertheoretical frameworkbased on the psychological needs for competence, autonomy,and
relatedness(see also Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan, 1992; Ryan& Stiller, 1991). They
linkedcontrolbeliefs to competenceneeds:Childrenwho believe they controltheir
achievementoutcomes should feel more competent.They hypothesizedthat the
extent to which these needs are fulfilled is influencedby the following contextual
characteristics:amount of structure,degree of autonomyprovided, and level of
involvementin the children'sactivities.Whenthe family,peer,andschool contexts
supportchildren'sautonomy,develop their competence, and provide positive relations with others,children'smotivation(which Connell andWellbornconceptualized as engagement) will be positive, and they will become fully engaged in
differentactivities such as schoolwork. When one or more of the needs are not
fulfilled, childrenwill become disaffected (see Connell, Spencer,& Aber, 1994;
Skinner& Belmont, 1993). This theory is especially relevantto this chapterbecauseof thefocus on relatednessas somethingthatinfluencesengagementin achievement activities. We returnto it in the sections on how relationswith teachersand
peers influence motivation.
Individuals'IntrinsicMotivation,Interests,Values,and Goals
Although theories dealing with competence, expectancy, and control beliefs
provide powerful explanationsof individuals' performanceon differentkinds of
achievementactivities,these theoriesdo not systematicallyaddressanotherimportantmotivationalquestion:Does the individualwantto do the task?Even if people
arecertainthey can do a taskandthinkthey can controlthe outcome,they may not
wantto engage in it. Once the decision is madeto engage in a task or activity,there
are differentreasons for doing so. The constructsdiscussed next focus on these
aspects of motivation.
Intrinsic
and Extrinsic
Motivation
A basic distinctionin the motivationliteratureis between intrinsicmotivation
andextrinsicmotivation(see Deci & Ryan, 1985;Harter,1981). Whenindividuals
are intrinsicallymotivated,they engage in activities for theirown sake and out of
interestin the activity.Csikszentmihalyi's(1988) notion of "flow"may represent
the ultimateform of intrinsicmotivation.He describedflow as feelings of being
immersedand carriedby an activity,as well as feeling in controlof one's actions
andthe surroundingenvironment.Flow is possible only when people feel thatthe
opportunitiesfor action in a given situationmatchtheir ability to masterthe challenges. By contrast,when extrinsicallymotivated,individualsengage in activities
for instrumentalor otherreasons, such as receiving a reward.
Deci, Ryan,andtheircolleagues (e.g., Deci, Vallerand,Pelletier,& Ryan, 1991)
went beyond the extrinsic-intrinsicmotivation dichotomy in their discussion of
internalization,the process of transferringthe regulationof behaviorfromoutside
to inside the individual.They defined severallevels in the process of moving from
Wigfield,Eccles, and Rodriguez: Children's Motivation
77
externalto moreinternalizedregulation:external(regulationcoming fromoutside

the individual),introjected(internalregulationbased on the individual'sfeelings
that he or she should or has to engage in the behavior), identified(internalregulationof behaviorthatis based on the utilityof thatbehavior,such as studyinghard
to get into college), and, finally, integrated (regulationbased on what the individual thinks is valuable and important).Even though the integrated level is
self-determined,it does not reflect intrinsicallymotivatedbehavior(Deci, 1992).
Intrinsicmotivationoccurs only when the individualis interestedin the behavior,
which may not be the case even at the integratedlevel of regulation.
Ryan and Stiller (1991) also argued against the simple intrinsic-extrinsicdichotomy. Like Connell and Wellborn(1991), they focused on the importanceof
engagementin learningas a crucialmotivationalconstruct.They also arguedthat
studentsare more likely to be engaged when they have internalizeda value for
learning. When studentshave internalizedvalues for learning, they will engage
themselves in learningtasks and activities,even if the activitiesare not of particular interestto them. Thus, these internalizedvalues are crucialto studentengagement. We returnlater to aspects of classroom social structuresthat promote or
inhibit studentengagement.
Interest
A constructclosely relatedto the notion of intrinsicmotivationis interest(see
Alexander,Kulikowich, & Jetton, 1994; Hidi, 1990; Krapp,Hidi, & Renninger,
1992; Renninger& Wozniak,1985; Schiefele, 1991, 1996a, 1996b;Tobias, 1994).
Researchersstudyinginterestdifferentiatebetween individualand situationalinterest.As the label implies, individualor personalinterestis a characteristicof the
individual,and it is conceptualizedas either a relatively stable disposition or an
active state. In discussing what individualinterestconsists of, Renninger(1990)
suggested that it includes both knowledge and value about a topic or object. By
contrast,situationalintereststems from conditionsin the environment(see Krapp
et al., 1992). Krappet al. arguedthat situationalinterestgeneratescuriosity,leading individualsto explore the topic further.
Individuals'personalinterestshave importantimplicationsfor their subsequent
activity(see Renninger,1990). Much of the researchon individualinteresthas focused on its relationto qualityof learning(see Alexanderet al., 1994; Renninger,
Hidi,& Krapp,1992;Schiefele, 1996a).In general,therearesignificantbutmoderate
relationsbetweeninterestandtextlearning.Moreimportant,interestis morestrongly
relatedto indicatorsof deep-levellearning,suchas recallof mainideas,coherenceof
recall,respondingto deepercomprehensionquestions,and representationof meaning, than it is to surface-levellearning,such as respondingto simple questionsor
verbatimrepresentationof text (Schiefele, 1996a;Schiefele & Krapp,in press).
Researchersstudyingsituationalinteresthave focused on the characteristicsof
academic tasks that create interest (e.g., Anderson, Shirey, Wilson, & Fielding,
1987; Hidi & Baird, 1986, 1988; Teigen, 1987). Among others, several text features have been found to arouse situationalinterest:personalrelevance, novelty,
activitylevel, andcomprehensibility(Hidi & Baird, 1986). Empiricalevidence has
78
providedstrongsupportfor the relationbetween situationalinterestand text comprehensionand recall (see reviews by Schiefele, 1996b; Wade, 1992). Furthermore, Hidi and Berndorff(1996) have arguedthat situationalinterestcan lead to
individualinterestandintrinsicmotivation.Thispointis a crucialone forthischapter;
featuresof activitiesthatindividualsdo in school can increasetheirpersonalinterest in the activities.
Althoughinterestis a powerfulmotivator,Deci (1992) noted that not all motivatedbehaviorreflects interest.Individualsoften do thingsthatarenot necessarily
of interestto them but have other purposes.This brings us to the notions of (a)
subjectivevaluing of activities and (b) achievementgoals.
Individuals'SubjectiveTaskValues
Eccles and her colleagues have defined differentways in which individualscan
value activities such as schoolwork (see Eccles et al., 1983; Wigfield & Eccles,
1992). Eccles et al. (1983) outlined four motivationalcomponentsof task value:
attainmentvalue, intrinsicvalue, utility value, and cost. They defined attainment
value as the personalimportanceof doing well on the task.Drawingon self-schema
and identity theories (e.g., Markus& Wurf, 1987), they also linked attainment
value to the relevanceof engagingin a taskfor confirmingor disconfirmingsalient
aspects of one's self-schema. That is, because tasks provide the opportunityto
demonstrateaspectsof one's actualor ideal self-schema,such as masculinity,femininity, and/orcompetence in various domains, tasks will have higher attainment
value to the extentthatthey allow the individualto confirmsalientaspectsof these
self-schemata(see Eccles, 1984, 1987).
Intrinsicvalue is the enjoymentthe individualgets fromperformingthe activity.
Thiscomponentof valueis similarto the constructof intrinsicmotivation,as defined
by Harter(1981) and by Deci and his colleagues (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan,
Connell, & Deci, 1985), and to the constructsof interestand flow, as defined by
Csikszentmihalyi(1988), Renninger(1990), and Schiefele (1991).
Utility value is determinedby how well a taskrelatesto currentandfuturegoals,
such as careergoals. A task can have positive value to a person because it facilitatesimportantfuturegoals, even if he or she is not interestedin the taskfor its own
sake. For instance, studentsoften take classes that they do not particularlyenjoy
but that they need in orderto pursueother interests,to please their parents,or to
be with theirfriends.In one sense, then,this componentcapturesthe more "extrinsic" reasons for engaging in a task. But it also relates directly to individuals' internalizedshort- and long-termgoals.
Finally, Eccles and her colleagues identified "cost"as a critical componentof
value (Eccles, 1987; Eccles et al., 1983). Cost is conceptualizedin terms of the
negative aspects of engaging in the task, such as performanceanxiety and fear of
both failureand success, as well as the amountof effort thatis needed to succeed
and the lost opportunitiesthatresult from makingone choice ratherthan another.
Eccles andhercolleagueshave foundthatindividuals'taskvalues predictcourse
plans and enrollmentdecisions in mathematics,physics, andEnglish andinvolvement in sport activities, even afterpriorperformancelevels have been controlled
79
(Eccles et al., 1983, 1995; Eccles, Adler, & Meece, 1984; Eccles & Harold, 1991;
Meece et al., 1990). They have also shown thatboth expectanciesand values predict careerchoices (see Eccles, 1994).
AchievementGoalOrientations
Recently, researchershave become interestedin children'sachievementgoals
andtheirrelationto achievementbehavior(see Ames & Ames, 1989;Meece, 1991,
1994). Several different approacheshave emerged. Bandura(1986) and Schunk
(1990, 1991) focus on goals' proximity,specificity, and level of challenge and
have shownthatspecific, proximal,andsomewhatchallenginggoals promoteboth
self-efficacy and improvedperformance.Otherresearchershave defined and investigatedbroadergoal orientations(e.g., Ames, 1992a, 1992b;Blumenfeld, 1992;
Butler,1993; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Nicholls, 1984). Forexample,Nicholls and
his colleagues (e.g., Nicholls, 1979b;Nicholls, Cobb,Yackel,Wood,& Wheatley,
1990) defined two majorkinds of motivationallyrelevantgoal patternsor orientations:ego-involved goals andtask-involvedgoals. Individualswith ego-involved
goals seek to maximize favorableevaluationsof their competence and minimize
negative evaluationsof competence. Questions such as "Will I look smart?"and
"Can I outperform others?" reflect ego-involved goals. In contrast, with
task-involved goals, individuals focus on mastering tasks and increasing their
competence.Questionssuch as "Howcan I do this task?"and"Whatwill I learn?"
reflecttask-involvedgoals. Nicholls also discusseda thirdtype of goal orientation:
work avoidance.As its label suggests, work avoidancerefersto attemptingto do
as little academic work as possible in school.
Dweck and her colleagues provided a complementary analysis (e.g., Dweck
& Elliott, 1983; Dweck & Leggett, 1988) distinguishing between performance goals (like ego-involved goals) and learning goals (like task-involved
goals). Similarly, Ames (1992b) distinguished between the association of
performance goals (like ego-involved goals) and mastery goals (like
task-focused goals) with both performanceand task choice. With ego-involved
(or performance) goals, children try to outperform others, and they are more
likely to engage in tasks they know they can do. Task-involved (or
mastery-oriented) children choose challenging tasks and are more concerned
with their own progress than with outperforming others.
Goal theories are currentlyvery popularamong researchersinterestedin both
the determinantsof performanceand task choice (e.g., Butler, 1989a, 1989b) and
the restructuringof schools to enhance motivation(e.g., Ames, 1992a; Maehr&
Midgley, 1996). By and large, consistent supportfor the benefits of task-involved
or learninggoals is emerging.However, the categorizationof children'sgoals as
ego or task involved oversimplifiesthe complexity of motivation.Researchersare
broadeningnotions of achievementgoal orientationsin importantways. As mentioned earlier,Nicholls, Cheung, Lauer, and Patashnick(1989) defined another
importantgoal orientation,workavoidance,which unfortunatelymay characterize
many students'motivation.In a somewhatsimilarvein, Elliott and Harackiewicz
(1996) discussedhow students'performancegoals canlead themto eitherapproach
80
achievement situationsor avoid such situations.This focus on avoidance motivation is an importantnew directionin the work on achievementgoals.
Anotherimportantissue regardinggoals concernstheirdomainspecificity versus generality. Some researchersstudy students' goal orientationsfor specific
domains; for instance, Meece (1991, 1994) studied students' goals for science.
Otherresearchershave arguedthat students'goal orientationsare more general.
Duda and Nicholls (1992) found thatstudents'goal orientationstowardsportand
academicsformedfactorsthatbridgedthe two domains.Thatis, the masterygoal
orientationfactor emerging in their analyses included items from both sport and
academicdomains.By contrast,students'perceivedcompetencewas moredomain
specific. DudaandNicholls concludedthatstudents'goal orientationsappearto be
quitegeneral,at least acrossthe domainsthey studied.StipekandGralinski(1996)
providedfurtherevidence thatstudents'goal orientationsgeneralizeacrossdifferent academicsubjectareas.More researchis needed on the domainspecificity or
generalityof students'goal orientations.
Thereis a growingbody of researchon how differentclassroomorganizational
characteristicsinfluence children'sgoal orientations;we discuss that work later.
MultipleGoal Perspectives
Researchersincluding Ford (1992) and Wentzel (1991b) have adopteda more
complex perspectiveon goals andmotivation,arguingthattherearemanydifferent
kinds of goals individualscan have in school settings.Forexample,Wentzel(e.g.,
Wentzel, 1991a, 1993, 1996) has examined the multiple goals of adolescents in
school settings.Wentzel'sview on goals differsfromthe views of theoristssuch as
Dweck andNicholls in thatshe focuses on the contentof children'sgoals to guide
anddirectbehaviorratherthanthe criteriaa personuses to define success or failure
(i.e., masteryvs. performance).In this sense, Wentzel'sgoals arelike the goals and
self-schemasthatrelateto attainmentvalue hierarchiesin the Eccles et al. expectancy value model.
Wentzelhas focused on both academicand social goals as being importantpredictors of children'sachievement(see Wentzel, 1996). She makes the important
point thatchildren'sacademicmotivationis not the only motivationalpredictorof
school performance;children'ssocial motivationmustbe consideredas well (see
also Goodenow, 1993; Urdan & Maehr, 1995; Wentzel & Wigfield, in press).
Wentzel(1989) found thatthe goals relatedto school achievementinclude seeing
oneself as successful, dependable,wantingto learnnew things, andwantingto get
things done. Higherachieving studentshave higherlevels of social responsibility
and higher achievement goals than lower achieving students (for a review, see
Wentzel, 1991a, 1991b). Similarly,Wentzel (1994) documentedthe association
among middle school children's prosocial goals of helping others, academic
prosocialgoals such as sharinglearningwith classmates,peer social responsibility
goals such as following throughon promises made to peers, and academic social
responsibilitygoals such as doing what the teacher says to do. Prosocial goals
(particularlyacademicprosocial goals) relatedpositively to peer acceptance.Interestingly,academicresponsibilitygoals relatednegativelyto peer acceptancebut
81
positively to acceptanceby teachers.Furthermore,positive prosocialandacademic

goals related positively to prosocial behaviors (as rated by teachers) and negatively to irresponsiblebehaviors.And, finally, the pursuitof positive social goals
was facilitated by perceived supportfrom teachers and peers. Like Connell and
Wellborn's(1991) discussion of relatedness,this work is central to this chapter
because of its focus on links between social and academic aspects of motivation.
In furtherworkon this topic, Patrick,Hicks, andRyan(1997) assessedrelations
of middle-school students'academic self-efficacy, social self-efficacy, and social
goals. They found that students'academicand social self-efficacy with peers and
teacherswere related.Children'sendorsementof responsibilitygoals was related
to theirsense of efficacy in relatingto theirteacher.Furthermore,children'ssocial
self-efficacy and social goals predictedtheiracademicself-efficacy.These results
provide furthersupportfor the notion that social aspects of motivationare important not only in terms of children'srelationswith teachersand peers but also for
their academic motivationand achievement.
To concludethis section,researchershave identifieda numberof importantconstructsthatarepartof students'motivation.Wehavediscussedtheseconstructsseparately,and,indeed,muchof theresearchon thesemotivationalconstructshasfocused
on just one (or at most two) of the constructs.Yet the constructsare related,and
increasinglyresearchersareexamininglinksamongthem.Forinstance,we nowknow
thatcompetencebeliefs,achievementvalues,andintrinsicmotivationrelatepositively
to one another(Eccles & Wigfield, 1995; Harter& Connell, 1984; Ryan& Stiller,
1991). Thus, when childrenthink they are competent,they are more likely to be
motivatedfor intrinsicreasons.Furthermore,
positive competencebeliefs, more intrinsicmotivations,and learninggoals lead to greaterpersistence,choices of more
challengingactivities,andhigherlevels of engagementin differentactivities(Ames,
1992b;Dweck & Leggett,1988;Pintrich& De Groot,1990). Similarly,havingpositive efficacy beliefs fosters setting more challenginggoals (Schunk, 1991). These
links need to be studiedfurtherin futureresearch.
RegulatingAchievementOutcomes:
Self-Regulationand Co-Regulation
Motivation theorists also study the specific ways children regulate their behavior to meet their goals (e.g., see Schunk & Zimmerman,1994). Some have
suggested links between motivationalbeliefs and the use of particularcognitive
strategies (e.g., Alexander et al., 1994; Pintrich, Marx, & Boyle, 1993). Kuhl
(1987) and Corno and Kanfer (1993) argued for the distinction between motivation and volition, with motivationguiding decisions aboutengaging in particular activities and volition guiding the behaviorsused to attainthe goal. Broadly,
these theorists focus on two issues: how motivation is translatedinto regulated
behavior and how motivation and cognition are linked.
Reviewing the extensive literatureon the self-regulationof behavioris beyond
the scope of this chapter(see Borkowski,Carr,Rellinger,& Pressley,1990;Schunk
& Zimmerman,1994). We briefly focus on the work of Zimmerman,Schunk,and
theircolleagues,becausetheydirectlylinkmotivationto self-regulation.Zimmerman
82
(1989) described self-regulated students as being metacognitively, motivationally, andbehaviorallyactive in theirown learningprocesses andin achievingtheir
own goals. Following Bandura(1986), Zimmermanposited reciprocallyrelated
personal, environmental,and behavioraldeterminantsof self-regulatedlearning
thatallow individualsto controlthe extentto which they are self-regulatedthrough
personalandbehavioralactions andchoices. However,he also acknowledgedthat
contextis importantin thatsome environmentsvaryin how muchlatitudefor choice
of activities or approachesis afforded.
Accordingto Zimmerman(1989), self-regulatedlearnershave threeimportant
characteristics.First,they use a varietyof self-regulatedstrategies(active learning
processes that involve agency and purpose). Second, self-regulatedstudentsbelieve they can performefficaciously. Third,self-regulatedstudentsset numerous
and varied goals for themselves. Furthermore,self-regulatedlearnersengage in
three important processes: self-observation (monitoring of one's activities),
self-judgment(evaluationof how well one's performancecompareswith a standard or with the performanceof others), and self-reactions(reactionsto performance outcomes).When these reactionsare favorable,particularlyin responseto
failure,studentsaremorelikely to persist.As proposedby attributiontheorists,the
favorablenessof people's reactionto failureis determinedby how they interpret
theirdifficultiesandfailures.ZimmermanandBonner(in press)discuss the advantages of attributingdifficulties to ineffective strategyuse ratherthan to a more
general attributionof not trying.
In discussing self-efficacy and self-regulation,Schunk (1994) emphasizedthe
interactive and synergistic relations among goal setting, self-evaluation, and
self-efficacy. He has discussed goals in two ways. Initially,he arguedand demonstratedthat when goals are proximal,specific, and challenging,they are most effective in motivatingchildren'sbehaviorandincreasingtheirsense of self-efficacy
(Schunk, 1990, 1991). Schunk (1994) also discussed how self-efficacy might be
influencedby the learningandperformancegoal types discussed earlier,suggesting thatself-efficacyshouldbe higherunderlearningthanunderperformancegoals;
some researchsupportsthis claim(e.g., Elliott& Dweck, 1988;Meece, Blumenfeld,
& Hoyle, 1988).
In contrastto the focus on self-regulation,McCaslinand Good (1996) recently
proposed the term co-regulation as a way to socially situate the learner.They
describedco-regulationas "theprocess by which the social/instructionalenvironment supportsor scaffolds the individual via her relationshipswithin the classroom,relationshipswith teachersandpeers,objectsandsetting,andultimately,the
self. Internalizationof these supportiverelationshipsempowers the individualto
seek new challenges within co-regulatedsupport"(p. 660). McCaslin and Good
stated that although self-regulation may be the ultimate goal for learning,
co-regulationis necessary to reach that goal. Teachersand other studentsmust
provide supportand motivationin orderfor any given studentto learn (see also
Goodenow,1993). McCaslinandGood describedthe following as being crucialin
co-regulation:opportunitiesmade available in differentclassrooms,the kinds of
taskspresentedto studentsandthe amountof choice allowed in them, the kinds of

goals studentshave, and students'own self-evaluations.The crucialpoint for our
purposesis again the recognitionof the social natureof learningand how interactions with others are critical to students' motivationand achievement.
THE DEVELOPMENT
OF MOTIVATION
The motivationconstructsdiscussedin the previoussections undergoimportant
changes during childhood and adolescence; these changes are the focus of this
section. A majorreason for discussing the researchon these changes is that this
informationis crucialfor understandinghow groupprocesses andthe social organizations of classrooms influence students' motivation. For instance, classroom
practices such as ability grouping probably affect younger and older students'
self-evaluationsdifferently,in partbecauseyoungerandolderchildrenhave differing conceptions of their ability.
The Development of Competence-Related Beliefs

Developmentaltheoristssuch as Harter(1983) proposedthatchildrenbegin with
broad understandingsof whetherthey are "smart"or "dumb"that later develop
into a more fine-grainedand differentiatedunderstandingof their competencies
acrossdifferentactivities.Researchersexaminingthis hypothesiswith factor-analytic approacheshave found thateven very young elementaryschool childrendistinguish among their self-perceptionsof competence in differentdomains (e.g.,
Eccles, Wigfield, Harold,& Blumenfeld, 1993; Harter,1982; Marsh& Hocevar,
1985). For example, Eccles et al. (1993) and Marsh and his colleagues (Marsh,
Barnes, Cairns,& Tidman, 1984; Marsh,Craven,& Debus, 1991) demonstrated
thateven kindergartenand first-gradechildren'sbeliefs abouttheir competencies
are clearly differentiatedacross many differentdomains,includingmath,reading,
music, sports,general school ability,physical appearance,and both peer and parent relations.
beliefsis thattheirlevels
Anotherkindof changein children'scompetence-related
on differenttasksdeclineacrosstheelementaryschoolyearsandintothemiddleschool
years(see Dweck & Elliott,1983;Eccles & Midgley,1989;Stipek& MacIver,1989;
Wigfield,Eccles,MacIver,Reuman,& Midgley,1991).Toillustrate,Nicholls(1979a)
foundthatmost first gradersrankedthemselvesnearthe top of the class in reading
ability,and there was no correlationbetween their abilityratingsand theirperformance level. In contrast,12-year-olds'ratingswere more dispersedand correlated
highlywithschoolgrades(.70 orhigher).Similarresultshaveemergedin cross-sectional
andlongitudinalstudiesof children'scompetencebeliefsin a varietyof academicand
nonacademicdomains(e.g., Eccles et al. 1993;Marsh,1989;Wigfieldet al., 1997).
Thesedeclines,particularly
formath,oftencontinueintoandthroughsecondaryschool
(Eccles et al., 1983, 1989; Wigfieldet al., 1991).
Expectanciesfor success also decrease duringthe elementaryschool years. In
most laboratory-typestudies,4- and5-year-oldchildrenexpect to do quite well on
specific tasks, even after repeatedfailure (e.g., Parsons & Ruble, 1977; Stipek,
1984). Stipek (1984) arguedthat young children's optimistic expectancies may
reflect hoped-foroutcomes ratherthanreal expectations;in addition,Parsonsand
84
Ruble (1977) suggested that, since young children's skills do improve rapidly,
high expectanciesfor futuresuccess may be based on experience(see also Dweck
& Elliott, 1983). Across the elementary school years, however, children's expectancies for success become more sensitive to both success and failure experiences and more accurateor realistic in terms of their relation to actual performance history (see Eccles, Midgley, & Adler, 1984; Parsons & Ruble, 1977;
Stipek, 1984).1
The declines in children'scompetence-relatedbeliefs have been explained in
two mainways. First,childrenbecome muchbetterat understanding,interpreting,
andintegratingthe evaluativefeedbacktheyreceive,andtheyengagein moresocial
comparisonwith theirpeers; this leads them to become more accurateor realistic
in their self-assessments,which means that some childrenwill see themselves as
being less competent (see Dweck & Elliott, 1983; Nicholls, 1984; Ruble, 1983;
Stipek & Mac Iver, 1989). Indeed,researchershave found that children'scompetencebeliefsrelatemoreclosely to theirperformanceas theyget older(e.g., Nicholls,
1979a; Wigfield et al., 1997).
Second,becauseschool environmentschangein ways thatmakeevaluationmore
salient and competition between students more likely, some children's
self-assessmentswill declineas theyget older(e.g., see Blumenfeld,Pintrich,Meece,
"&
Wessels, 1982;Eccles & Midgley, 1989;Eccles, Midgley,& Adler, 1984; Stipek
"&
Daniels, 1988).We returnto these pointslater,especiallythe pointaboutchanges
in school environments,because it deals directlywith how the social organization
of schools influences motivation.
Interestingly,children'sself-efficacy beliefs appearto increaseratherthan decrease. Shell, Colvin, and Bruning (1995) found that 4th graders had lower
self-efficacy beliefs for readingandwritingthandid 7th and 10thgraders,andthe
7th graders'efficacy beliefs were lower than 10thgraders'beliefs (see Zimmerman
& Martinez-Pons,1990, for similar findings). The inconsistency in the findings
regarding self-efficacy and competence beliefs probably reflects measurement
differences.Shell et al. measuredchildren'sestimatesof theirefficacy on specific
readingandwritingskills, which shouldbe higheramongolderchildren.Measures
of competence beliefs tend to be more general (see Pajares, 1996).
Developmentof Controland Agency Beliefs

Duringmiddlechildhoodandbeyond, thereappearsto be an increasein perceptions of internal control as children get older (see Skinner & Connell, 1986).
However, based on a series of studies of children'sunderstandingof skill versus
chance events, Weisz (1984) concludedthatthe developmentalsequence is more
childrenin thesestudiesbelievedthatoutcomesof chance
complex.Thekindergarten
tasks were due to effort, whereas the oldest groups (eighth gradersand college
students) believed that such outcomes were due to chance; fourth graderswere
confusedaboutthe distinction.Thus,in this work,the youngestchildrenhad strong
internalcontrolbeliefs, so strong,in fact, thatthey believed in internalcontrolover
outcomeseven when none was possible, suggestingthatwith age childrencame to
understandbetter which kinds of events they can and cannot control. Similarly,
85
Connell (1985) found a decrease in the endorsementof all three of his locus of
controlconstructs(internalcontrol,controlby powerfulothers,andunknowncontrol)
from Grades3 through9. The findings regardingunknowncontrolbeliefs suggest
thatolderchildrenhave a clearerunderstandingof whatcontrolstheirachievement
outcomes than do younger children.However, the older childrenratedthe other
two sources of control as less importantas well.
Skinner(1990, 1995) emphasizedthe importanceof success itself for developing positive controlbeliefs and discussedhow children'sunderstandingof causality andexplanationsfor outcomes changeover age. She foundthatthe structureof
children'scontrolbeliefs becamemorecomplex as childrengot older.Like Connell
(1985), she also found that beliefs about unknown control and powerful others
decreased across age levels.
Developmentof Interestand IntrinsicMotivation

Travers(1978) suggested that only "universal"interests would be evident in
very youngchildren(e.g., the searchfor structure).Later,children'sinterestsshould
become more differentiatedand individualized.Roe and Siegelman (1964) proposed thatthe earliestdifferentiationoccursbetweeninterestin the worldof physical objects and interestin the world of people. Todt (1990) arguedthat this early
differentiationeventually leads to individualdifferencesin interestsin the social
versus the naturalsciences.
A second major change in children's interests, occurring between 3 and 8
years of age, regards the formation of gender-specific interests. According
to Kohlberg (1966), the acquisition of gender identity leads to gender-specific
behaviors, attitudes, and interests. Children strive to behave consistently with
their gender identity and, thus, evaluate activities or objects consistent with
their gender identity more positively than other activities or objects. As a
consequence, boys and girls develop gender-role-stereotyped interests (see
Eccles, 1987; Renninger & Wozniak, 1985; Ruble & Martin, 1998). For
instance, Wigfield et al. (1997) found that elementary-school-aged girls were
more interested in instrumental music and reading than were boys, whereas
boys were more interested in sports than were girls.
As is the case with children's competence beliefs, children's academic
intrinsic motivation and interest have been found to decline across the school
years; these results have occurred in studies of European and American
children, and such decreases are especially true for the natural sciences and
mathematics (e.g., Eccles et al., 1993; Harter, 1981; Hedelin & Sjoberg,
1989; Helmke, 1993; Lehrke, Hoffmann, & Gardner, 1985; Wigfield et al.,
1997) and during the early adolescent years. Pekrun (1993) found that intrinsic motivation stabilized after eighth grade.
Baumert(1995) arguedthat the decline in school-relatedinterestsduringadolescence reflects a more generaldevelopmentalprocess in which adolescentsdiscover new fields of experiencethatlead to new interestsand reducethe dominant
influence of school. In contrast,otherresearchershave suggested that changes in
a numberof instructionalvariables,such as clarityof presentation,monitoringof
86
what happensin the classroom, supportivebehavior,cognitively stimulatingexperiences, self-concept of the teacher (e.g., educatorvs. scientist), and achievement pressure, may contributeto declining interest in school mathematicsand
science (e.g., Eccles & Midgley, 1989).
Developmentof SubjectiveTaskValues
Eccles, Wigfield, andtheircolleagues examinedage-relatedchangesin boththe
structureand mean levels of children'svaluing of differentactivities.In Eccles et
al. (1993), Eccles and Wigfield (1995), and Wigfield et al. (1997), children's
competence-expectancybeliefs and subjectivevalues withinthe domainsof math,
reading,andsportsformeddistinctfactorsat all gradelevels. Thus,even duringthe
very early elementarygrades, childrenappearto have distinctbeliefs aboutwhat
they aregood at andwhatthey value.The distinctionsamongtheimportance,utility,
andinterestcomponentsof subjectivetaskvalue appearto differentiatemoregradually (Eccles et al., 1993; Eccles & Wigfield, 1995). Childrenin the early elementarygradesdifferentiatetaskvalue into two components:interestandutility/importance. In contrast,childrenin Grades5 through12 differentiatetask value into the
three majorsubcomponents(attainmentvalue/personalimportance,interest,and
utilityvalue) outlinedby Eccles et al. (1983). These resultssuggestthatthe interest
componentdifferentiatesout first, followed laterby the distinctionbetweenutility
and attainmentvalue.
As with competence-relatedbeliefs, researchersgenerallyfind age-relateddeclines in children's valuing of certain academic tasks (e.g., Eccles et al., 1983,
1993;see Eccles & Midgley,1989;Wigfield& Eccles, 1992).Forinstance,Wigfield
et al. (1997) found thatchildren'sbeliefs aboutthe usefulness and importanceof
math, reading, instrumentalmusic, and sports activities decreased over time. In
contrast,the children'sinterestdecreasedonly for readingandinstrumentalmusic
(not for either math or sports).The decline in valuing of math continuesthrough
high school (Eccles et al., 1983). Eccles et al. (1989) and Wigfield et al. (1991)
also found thatchildren'sratingsof both the importanceof mathand English and
their liking of these school subjectsdecreasedacross the transitionto junior high
school. In math,students'importanceratingscontinuedto declinein seventhgrade,
whereas their importanceratingsof English increasedsomewhatduringseventh
grade.
Developmentof Children'sGoals
There has been little work on how children'sgoals develop. AlthoughNicholls
documentedthatbothtaskgoals andego goals areevidentby secondgrade(Nicholls
et al., 1989, 1990), he also suggested that an ego goal orientationbecomes more
prominentfor many childrenas they get older as a result of both developmental
changes in their conceptionsof ability and systematicchanges in school context.
Dweck and her colleagues (e.g., Dweck & Leggett, 1988) also predictedthat, as
they get older, childrenare more likely to adoptperformancegoals as they come
87
to view intelligence as stable (entity view), because an entity view of intelligence

is linked to performancegoals. Recently, Meece and Miller (1996) found that, in
the thirdand fourthgrades,children'slearningand performancegoals decreased,
andtheirwork avoidancegoals increased.More workchartingthe developmentof
children'sgoal orientationsis needed.
The relations of goals to performance should also change with age as the
meaning of ability and effort change and as the social conditions under which
tasks are performed change. In a series of studies examining how competitive and noncompetitive conditions, along with task and ego-focused conditions, influence preschool-aged and elementary-school-aged children's inButler identified several
terests, motivation, and self-evaluations,
children's subsequent
decreased
developmental changes. First, competition
interest in a task only among those children who had also developed a
social-comparative sense of ability (Butler, 1989a, 1990). Competition also
increased older, but not younger, children's tendency to engage in social
comparison (Butler, 1989a, 1989b). Second, although children of all ages
engaged in social comparison, younger children seemed to be doing so more
for task mastery reasons, whereas older children did so to assess their abilities (Butler, 1989b). Third, whereas 5-, 7-, and 10-year-old children's
self-evaluations were equally accurate under mastery conditions, 5- and 7year-olds inflated their performance self-evaluations more than 10-year-olds
under competitive conditions (Butler, 1990). Apparently, the influence of
situationally induced performance goals on children's self-evaluations depends on the children's age and cognitive sophistication. Finally, Butler and
Ruzany (1993) found that patterns of socialization influence both ability
assessments and reasons for social comparison: Kibbutz-raised Israeli children adopted a normative ability concept at a younger age than city-reared
Israeli children. However, only the urban children's reasons for engaging in
social comparison were influenced by their concept of ability: Once they
adopted a normative view, they used social comparison to compare their
abilities with those of other children. In contrast, the kibbutz children used
social comparison primarily for mastery reasons, regardless of their conception of ability.
Developmentalstudies of multiplegoals arebadly needed. We know very little
abouthow these kinds of multiplegoals emergeduringchildhoodandwhetherthe
relationof these differentgoals to performancevaries across age and context.
In summary,researchersstudyingthe developmentof children'smotivationhave
found thatmotivationchanges in importantways acrossthe middle childhoodand
early adolescent years. Children's self-perceptions,interests, values, and goals
become differentiatedandestablishedduringthis time. Particularlyduringmiddle
childhood and early adolescence, children's beliefs and values tend to decline.
Children'scompetenceandefficacy beliefs become moreclosely tied to indicators
of their performance.These changes are importantto keep in mind as we review
how social organizationsof classrooms and groupprocesses influence children's
motivation;thus, we revisit some of these points in subsequentsections.
88

THE SOCIALORGANIZATION
OF CLASSROOMS
AND STUDENTS'MOTIVATION
How do different social organizationalstructuresin classrooms and instructional practices influence students' motivation? We focus in this section on
relations between studentsand teachers and their impact on motivation,emphasizing the motivationconstructsdiscussed in the earliersections. We begin at the
relativelybroadlevel of overall classroomand school climate and theirinfluence
on motivation and then discuss more specific factors, with a special focus on
classroom goal structureand ability groupingpractices.We then move to more
specific teaching practices and their influences on motivation.Our review does
not captureall aspects of classroom organizationand teacherpractices;instead,
we focus on the factors most often studied by motivation theorists. Interested
readers also should see other reviews for further discussion of these issues,
including Eccles et al. (1998), McCaslin and Good (1996), Maehr and Midgley
(1996), Pintrichand Schunk (1996), and Wigfield, Eccles, and Pintrich(1996).
Classroom- and School-Level Factors

Classroom and School Climateand Student Motivation
Researchersstudying teacherinfluence on motivationinitially focused on the
impactof teachers'personalcharacteristicsandteachingstyle on children'soverall
achievement,motivation,satisfaction,and self-concept.Many investigatorsstudied the associationbetweenteacherwarmth/supportiveness
andstudentmotivation
(particularlythe value attachedto workinghard)and performance.However,because much of this early work was flawed methodologically,the results are difficult to interpret(see Dunkin & Biddle, 1974, for a review).
More recently,researchersstudying classroom climate have separatedfactors
such as teacherpersonalityand warmthfrom teacherinstructionand managerial
style. They found that the effects of "climate"are dependenton other aspects of
teachers'beliefs andpractices.For instance,Moos andhis colleagues have shown
that studentsatisfaction,personalgrowth, and achievementare maximized only
when teacherwarmthand supportivenessare accompaniedby efficient organization, stress on academics,and provisionof focused, goal-orientedlessons (Fraser
& Fisher, 1982; Moos, 1979; Trickett& Moos, 1974). Furthermore,these practices are more common among teacherswho believe they can influence their students' performanceand future achievementpotential(Brookover,Beady, Flood,
Schweitzer,& Wisenbaker,1979; Rutter,Maughan,Mortimore,& Ouston, 1979).
Recently,researchershave extendedthis generalapproachto the climate of the
entireschool. They found thatschools vary in climate, teachers'sense of efficacy,
and general expectationsregardingstudentpotential.Variationsin these dimensions influence the motivationof both teachersand studentsin very fundamental
ways (e.g., Maehr & Midgley, 1996; Rutteret al., 1979). The work of Maehr,
Midgley, and their colleagues is a good example of this school organizational
perspective (e.g., Maehr & Anderman, 1993; Maehr & Midgley, 1996). These
investigatorshave focused primarilyon some of the importantmotivation conThis content downloaded from 200.52.254.249 on Mon, 30 Mar 2015 20:34:49 UTC
89
structswe have discussed in this chapter,students' goal orientationsand beliefs

aboutability.They suggest that school-level policies and practices(such as those
promotingability tracking,comparativeperformanceevaluations,retention,and
ego instead of mastery focus) undermine the motivation of both teachers and
studentsthroughtheir impact on the goals these individualsbring to the learning
environment(cf. Mac Iver,Reuman,& Main, 1995). These researchershave conductedextensive collaborativework to restructureelementaryandmiddle schools
to emphasize mastery- rather than ability-focused goals in order to foster the
motivationof students.
Classroom Goal Structure,CooperativeLearning,

and Student Motivation
Ames (1984) discussed how differentgoal structuresused in the classroom affect students'self-evaluationand motivation.She focused on threedifferentgoal
structures.Individualizedstructuresoccur when each studentis judged on his or
her own performance.In this structure,any studentcan succeed if he or she works
hard.The performanceof otherstudentsdoes not affect the evaluationof any given
student. Competitivestructuresmean that some students are winners and others
losers;thatis the essence of competition.Ames notedthatcompetitionmakessocial
comparisonandjudgmentsof abilityespeciallysalient.Cooperativestructuresmean
that groupmemberssharein rewardsor punishments;the overall group'sperformance is key (althoughindividualsoften are accountableas well).
Ames (1984) discussed some of the motivationaloutcomes of these different
structures;the structuresinfluence in, particular,children'sability-relatedbeliefs
and goal orientations.In general,studentsfocus more on self-evaluationsof their
ability undercompetitive goal structures.Winners' ability beliefs are enhanced,
and losers' are diminished.Overall, differences in self-perceptionsof ability are
heightenedundercompetitiveconditions.Withindividualisticstructures,students'
mastery goals are heightened;the main focus is on improvingone's own skills.
Ability perceptionsprobablyare less salient, because the focus is on effort and
improvement.Thereis little concernfor others,however,because each individual
determines his or her own achievement. Cooperative goal structuresfoster an
emphasison sharedeffortandinterdependenceratherthanability.The social group
becomes more the focus, and the groupoutcome is especially salient;thus, social
goals may be enhanced.Individuals'own abilityperceptionsbecome less crucial;
rather,the group'sperformanceis emphasized.
A majorapproachto instructionthat uses cooperativegoal structuresis cooperativelearning.Generally,cooperativelearninginvolves studentsworkingtogether
in groups ratherthan on their own or competing with others. There are a variety
of typesof cooperativelearning;thesearedescribedby Kagan(1985), Slavin(1995),
and Webband Palincsar(1996). For instance,in "jigsaw"each studentin a group
is given partof the materialthathe or she needs to learn,andthe studentsharesthis
materialwith the othermembersof the group.In "teamgames tournaments,"students form into groupsto learnmaterialand then compete againstothergroupsto
earn points for their team.
90
There now is an extensive literatureon cooperativelearning'seffects on children (for reviews, see Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 1994; Sharan& Sharan,1992;
Slavin, 1995, 1996). Researchershave found that cooperativelearninghas many
positive effects. Whenteachersadopta cooperativeinstructionalandrewardstructure in their classrooms, achievementoften improves, social relations are more
positive, andstudents'motivationis enhanced(see Sharan& Shaulov,1990). Both
learningandmotivationappearto be maximallyfacilitatedin cooperativelearning
situationsthatarecharacterizedby both groupgoals andindividualaccountability
(Slavin, 1995).Such situationsappearto createpositiveinterdependenceandstimulatinggroupinquiry,which, in turn,arousesocial andacademicmotivationalgoals
andpreventthe "freeridereffect,"or the problemof some childrenreceiving good
evaluationsbecause their group does well, even if they did not contributeto the
group (Stevens & Slavin, 1995).
Researchershave assessed how some of the differentaspectsof studentmotivation we have discussed are affected by cooperativelearning. Students' liking of
school and/orliking of differentschool subjectsoften has been assessed, and, as
just mentioned,most studies of cooperativelearningshow that students'attitudes
aremorepositive in classroomsin which cooperativelearningis used extensively.
Stevens andSlavin (1995) assessed students'beliefs abouttheirabilityin different
subject areas along with their liking of the subjects.They found that studentsin
cooperativeelementaryschools did have higher perceived ability in reading and
maththanstudentsin "traditional"schools; however,therewere no differencesin
students'likingof the differentsubjectsbetweenthe two groups(StevensandSlavin
suggested thatthis may have been due to problemswith their attitudemeasures).
Overall, cooperativelearning appearsto have a positive impact on some of the
motivationalconstructswe have been discussing.
Most of the research on cooperative learning has taken place in elementary
schools. As we noted earlier,students'motivationalcharacteristicschange across
the school years, and so it is importantto assess how practicessuch as cooperative
learning affect studentsof differentages. Recently, Nichols (1996, in press) assessed cooperativelearning'seffects on a numberof the motivationconstructswe
are discussing in this chapter,includingpersistence,self-regulation,self-efficacy,
intrinsic/extrinsicmotivation,and goal orientation.Nichols has examined the effects of cooperativelearningon these constructsin studiesof high school students
in mathematicsclasses. Studentsin the studies learned geometry either through
cooperativelearningtechniquesor throughmore traditionalmethods.Theirmotivationwas measuredvia a questionnaire.Studentsin thecooperativelearninggroups
(in comparisonwith those in more traditionalinstruction)showed more positive
self-regulationand self-efficacy, higher intrinsicmotivation,and a strongerfocus
on masterygoals, with the differencesbetween groupsoften increasingover time.
The studentsin cooperativelearning also stated a strongerdesire to please their
teachers and their friends, providingfurtherevidence for cooperative learning's
positive effects on social outcomes.
Althoughcooperativelearningappearsto have manydesirableoutcomes,it does
pose challenges for teachers.Structuringactivities cooperativelyrequiresexten-
91
sive planning,andrecordkeeping can be challenging as well. Thereare questions

concerningthe kinds of subjectareasfor which cooperativelearningis most effective.
Another importantissue in cooperativelearningis group composition. Slavin
(1990) and otherresearchersgenerallyrecommendthat groupsbe heterogeneous
in termsof children'sability level as well as othercharacteristicssuch as race and
gender.Thereis a growingbody of researchon how groupcompositioninfluences
studentinteractionin the group,and a majorimplicationof this work is thatgroup
compositionindeed has importantinfluences on how groupsoperate(see Webb&
Palincsar,1996, for a review). WebbandPalincsarnoted thatchildrenwith middle
levels of ability may be ignored in heterogeneousgroups;high-ability children
benefit by being leaders and teachers, and low-ability childrenbenefit from the
mixed-racegroupscanbe dominated
high-abilitychildren'steaching.Furthermore,
White
and
mixed-sex
can
be dominatedby boys. Thus, care
children,
by
groups
must be taken in constructinggroups, and teachersare advised to change groups
frequently.
The reasons for the positive effects of cooperativelearningon studentmotivation and achievementstill arenot completely understood.Slavin (1996) discussed
different alternativemodels for the effects of cooperative learning:the motivationalperspective,the social cohesion perspective,the developmentalperspective,
and the cognitive elaborativeperspective.Accordingto the motivationalperspective, students,when workingin groups,know thatthe only way they can reachtheir
own goals is for the groupto be successful. Therefore,they are motivatedto help
others in the groupand work hardso thatthe groupdoes succeed. Thus, cooperative learningcreatesa "groupincentive"systemin which individualsworktogether
to achieve theirown goals. Of course,this contrastsdramaticallywith competitive
rewardstructures,in which one person's success means another'sfailure.
Slavin (1996) attemptedto integratethe four perspectivesinto one model. He
proposedthat group goals facilitate students'own motivationto learn, as well as
theirmotivationto encourageand help theirgroupmatesto learn.This motivation
will lead studentsto tutorone another,engage in peer modeling, andprovideother
cognitive elaborations.It also will lead to greatersocial cohesiveness in the group.
Thus, in Slavin's model, motivation is the key, producingsocial, cognitive, and
academicoutcomes.
Ames (1992b) discussedhow classroomgroupingandotherpracticesinfluence
students' achievement goal orientations and other aspects of motivation (see
Blumenfeld, 1992, for an expansionandcritiqueof some of Ames's ideas). Ames,
following Epstein (1988), focused on several aspects of motivation-classroom
tasks, authoritystructure,recognition,grouping,evaluation,and time-and used
the acronymTARGETto describethem.Eachof theseaspectscan influencewhether
studentsdevelop a more task-involvedor a more ego-orientedgoal orientation.In
describingthese influences, we focus on practices that facilitate a task-involved
goal orientation(or masterygoal orientation,to use Ames's term). Tasksthat are
diverse, interesting, and challenging foster students' task-involved goals, as do
tasks studentsthinkthey have a reasonablechance to complete. When the author-
92
ity in classrooms is structuredsuch that students have opportunitiesto participate in decision making and take responsibilityfor their own learning, students
are more task involved. Recognition of students' effort (instead of recognition
of only ability) and giving all students a chance to achieve recognition (rather
than only the "best" students) foster task involved-goals. As discussed earlier,
task-involvedgoals are fostered when cooperativegroupingis used and students
have opportunitiesto work with a heterogeneousmix of classmates.When teachers evaluate students'progress and masteryratherthan only their outcomes and
provide students opportunitiesto improve, task involvement is more likely. Finally, time refers to how instructionis paced. Crucialelements for fostering task
involvement are varying the amountsof time available for different studentsto
complete their work and helping studentslearn to plan their own work schedule
and organizehow they progressthroughthe work. Ames (1992a, 1992b) argued
cogently that such practices will allow more studentsto remain positively motivatedin the classroom,in that they will have more positive competencebeliefs
and task-involved goals (see also Stipek, 1996).
It shouldbe clearfromthe workjust reviewedthatmuchprogresshas been made
towardunderstandinghow these differentschool andclassroomfeaturesinfluence
students'motivation.Yet, much more work is needed to understandhow various
instructionalstrategiesinteractwith each otherin a single context (e.g., the classroom) to affect motivationand learning(Ames, 1992b;Blumenfeld, 1992). Most
teachers in American schools use a mix of mastery-oriented and
strategies.Forexample,they may use mastery-orientedtasks
performance-oriented
and allow the studentsappropriatelevels of autonomybut still rely primarilyon
social comparativeevaluationstrategies,andchildrenoften engage in social comparison and competition even in mastery-orientedclassrooms (Crockenberg&
Bryant,1978).Weknow littleaboutthebest combinationof thesefeaturesto support
a mastery-orientedmotivationalorientation.Nor do we know when, and if, the
collection of motivationaldimensions actually clusters togetherwithin the individual. More work is needed to determinehow these motivationalcomponents
interrelatewith each other and with other motivational constructsto influence
behavior.Of particularimportanceis the need to study the interactionof multiple
goals as well as the contextualcharacteristicsinfluencingthe relative salience of
various achievement,social, and moral goals in particularsettings.
Students' own beliefs abouteffective instructionaland motivationalstrategies
need to be consideredas well. Results of two studies are illustrative.Nolen and
Nicholls (1993) found that studentsand teachersoften had differentviews on the
effectiveness of motivationalpractices; for instance, students thought extrinsic
rewardswere more effective, andpraise less effective, thanteachersdid. Furthermore, Thorkildsen,Nolen, andFournier(1994) found thatsome childrenbelieved
practicespromotingmeaningfullearningwere most fair, othersfavoredpractices
emphasizingthe importanceof effort,and still othersfocused on practicesinvolving extrinsicreward.If students'ideas aboutappropriatemotivationalstrategiesdo
not mesh with teachers' ideas and practices, students' motivation might not be
enhanced.
93
AbilityGroupingPractices
Students are grouped by ability in two main ways. In elementary schools,
children are often grouped by ability within classrooms for instruction in
subjects such as reading and math. In middle schools and high schools, between-classroom ability grouping, or tracking, is used more. These practices are controversial (e.g., Oakes, 1985) and have attracted much attention. Despite an extensive amount of research, however, few strong and
definitive answers have emerged regarding their impact on motivation (see
Fuligni, Eccles, & Barber, 1995; Gamoran & Mare, 1989; Kulik & Kulik,
1987; Slavin, 1990). The situation is complicated by the fact that there are
conflicting hypotheses about the likely direction and the magnitude of the
effects of ability grouping on motivation. The best justification for these
practices derives from a person-environment fit perspective: People will be
more motivated to learn if the material can be adapted to their current competence level. There is some evidence consistent with this perspective for
students placed in high-ability classrooms, high within-class ability groups,
and college tracks (Dreeben & Barr, 1988; Fuligni et al., 1995; Gamoran &
Mare, 1989; Kulik & Kulik, 1987; Pallas, Entwisle, Alexander, & Stulka,
1994). The results for students placed in low-ability and noncollege tracks
do not confirm this hypothesis. By and large, when long-term effects are
found for this group of students, they are negative, primarily because these
students are often provided with inferior educational experience and support
(Dreeben & Barr, 1988; Pallas et al., 1994). Such results are consistent with
a social stratification theoretical perspective. But it is important to note that
these negative effects appear to result from the stereotypically biased implementation of ability grouping programs. A different result might emerge for
the low-competence students if the teachers implemented the program more
in keeping with the goals inherent in the person-environment fit perspective,
that is, by providing high-quality instruction and motivational practices tailored to the current competence level of the students.
One importantconcernaboutabilitygroupingis determiningthe relevantsocial
comparison group for particularstudents. Ability grouping should narrow the
range of possible social comparisons and thus lead to declines in the ability
self-perceptions of higher ability individuals and increases in the ability
self-perceptions of lower ability individuals. The few existing studies support
this position. For example, Reuman,Mac Iver,Eccles, andWigfield (1987) found
that being placed in a low-ability math class in the seventh grade led to an increase in self-concept of math ability and a decrease in test anxiety; conversely,
being placed in a high-ability math class led to a decrease in self-concept of
math ability (see also Reuman, 1989). Similarly, Marsh, Chessor, Craven, and
Roche (1995) found that being placed in a gifted and talented programled to a
decline over time in students' academic self-concepts. It should be noted, however, that Pallas et al. (1994) found no evidence of within-class ability grouping
in reading effects on ability self-concepts and performanceexpectations during
the early elementary school years once the effect of ability group placement on
94
actual achievement level was controlled. However, if children compare across

ability groups, then students in lower tracks should end up with less positive
ability beliefs, and those in the higher tracks more positive ability beliefs.
TeacherBeliefs, Practices, and Supportof Students

Teaching Practices Linkedto Self-Evaluationand Motivation
Rosenholtz and Simpson (1984) discussed a set of teaching practices that
affect motivation because they make ability differences in classroom especially salient to the students. These practices include whole group (vs. more
individualized) instruction, ability grouping (vs. heterogeneous grouping), and
public (vs. private) feedback. Rosenholtz et al. assumed that the first practice
listed in each pair increases the salience of students' ability as crucial to success in the classroom and focuses students more on social comparisons with
others. The practices also promote extrinsic motivators and ego-focused learning goals. All of these factors probably reduce children's motivation for learning, especially their beliefs about their competence. Such effects are particularly likely for low-performing children because, as these children become
more aware of their relative low standing, they are likely to adopt a variety of
ego-protective strategies that undermine learning and mastery (Covington,
1992). The little available research provides preliminary support for these
hypotheses (e.g., Mac Iver, 1987; Rosenholtz & Rosenholtz, 1981). However,
Stipek (1996) noted that these practices interact in complex ways that still are
not fully understood.
It is obvious that grades and test scores influence students' self-evaluations
by providing them with important information about their academic performance. However, it is not only the information itself but its form of presentation that is crucial. Public methods for charting progress, such as wall posters detailing amount or level of work completed, provide readily accessible
information that students can use to compare themselves with one another
(Rosenholtz & Rosenholtz, 1981). In addition, teachers who frequently contrast students' performances, grant privileges to "smart"children, or award
prizes for "best" performance may increase the importance of ability as a
factor in classroom life and heighten the negative affect associated with
failure (see Ames, 1992b). When there are few clear winners and many losers,
relative performance will be more salient to children, and thus social com1979b). In contrast, in
parison will be emphasized (Nicholls,
mastery-oriented classrooms, everyone who performs adequately can experience success. As a result, youngsters in mastery-oriented rooms are more
likely to focus on self-improvement than social comparison, to perceive
themselves as able, and to have high expectations for success (Ames, 1992b).
Finally, when variations in evaluations are either attributed to entity-based
differences in competence or used as a controlling strategy rather than primarily for information on progress, intrinsic motivation is reduced (Kage &
Namiki, 1990). Motivation researchers suggest that evaluation practices
95
focusing on students' mastery and improvement are better at fostering and

maintaining motivation than are social normative, competitive, or controlling evaluation practices (see Ames, 1992b; Maehr & Midgley, 1996).
Teacher Controland Use of Rewards

As discussedearlier,researcherssuch as Deci andRyan(1985), RyanandStiller
(1991), and Connell and Wellborn(1991) have arguedthatintrinsicmotivationand, more particularly,internalizationof the value of learning-leads to student
engagement.Classroomcontexts can greatlyinfluence students'engagement;the
degree of teacher versus student control is one crucial part of this. Deci, Ryan,
Connell,andtheircolleagues have discussedhow teacherswho areoverly controlling and do not provide an adequateamountof autonomysupportunderminestudents' sense of autonomy,which can also underminetheirintrinsicmotivationand
engagement. Supportfor this hypothesis has been found in both laboratoryand
field-basedstudies(e.g., Boggianoet al., 1992;Deci, Schwartz,Sheinman,& Ryan,
1981; Grolnick& Ryan, 1987; Ryan & Grolnick, 1986; see Ryan & Stiller, 1991,
for a review).
Skinnerand Belmont (1993) built on this work by looking at predictorsof students' engagement,defined in both behavioralandemotionalterms.The theoretical model for this studywas Connell andWellborn's(1991) model of engagement.
As discussed earlier,Connell andWellbornproposedthatstudentshave threefundamentalneeds (competence, autonomy,and relatedness)and that when context
supportsthese needs, studentswill be engaged in the activitiesthatthey do. Skinner and Belmont measuredteachers'and students'perceptionsof teachers'provision of clear structurein the classroom,theirsupportof autonomy,and theiremotional involvement with students. They also measured teachers' and students'
perceptionsof students'behavioraland emotional engagementin the classroom.
They found that students'behavioralengagementwas predictedmost stronglyby
teachers'abilityto structurethe classroomclearly.Studentemotionalengagement
was predictedmost by teachers'positive involvementwith students.Furthermore,
students'behaviorinfluencedteachers'treatmentof studentsacrossthe schoolyear;
therefore,the effects must be thoughtof as reciprocal.The most crucialfinding of
the study for this chapter,however, concerns the impact of teachers'positive involvement with studentson students' emotional engagement;the implicationof
this finding is that positive relationswith teachersare crucial to motivation.
Otherresearchersalso have looked at the impact of control and autonomyon
studentmotivationand achievement.Turner(1995, 1997) studiedhow classroom
contexts influence different aspects of young students' motivation for literacy
activities. She distinguished between open and closed literacy activities. Open
activities are ones that allow studentschoice, requirestrategyuse, and facilitate
studentinvolvement and persistence.Because studentschoose the activities, they
often aremoreinterestedin them.In contrast,closed activitiesaremoreconstrained,
both in terms of students'choices aboutwhetherand how to engage in them and
in termsof the cognitive demandsof the activity.Turner(1995) foundthatin classrooms where tasks are more open, studentswere more engaged in literacy activi-
96
ties, used more elaborate strategies, and were much more interested in literacy
activities.
Au and her colleagues (Au, 1997; Au, Scheu, Kawakami, & Herman, 1990)
discussed the importanceof students' ownership of their activities as a crucial
contributorto the developmentof literacy skills. Arguingthat ownershipis especially importantfor many minoritystudents,they developed reading curriculain
Hawaii to help foster the development of literacy skills, including ownership,in
native Hawaiians,a group that traditionallyhas done poorly in school. The reading and writing activities in the KamehamehaElementary Education Program
(KEEP)curriculapromoteownershipby makingthe materialsculturallyrelevant
to the children.Evaluationsof the programhave shown that studentsare strongly
engaged in the literacy activities and have a strong sense of ownership over the
activities. Initially, improvementin the children's reading performancewas not
dramatic;in more recent evaluations,however, 80% of the studentsin the KEEP
programwere at or above grade level in reading.
One crucial point of debate relevant to the topic of control and autonomy is
whetherextrinsicrewardsshould be used by teachersto motivate studentsand, if
they areused, how they should be administered.The use of rewardsby teachersis
a common practicein many schools; the rewardscan be tangible (e.g., extraprivileges) or verbal(e.g., praise).Yet, manymotivationtheorists,particularlytheorists
who believe intrinsicmotivationhas many positive effects on students' learning,
have arguedthat,undercertainconditions,the use of such rewardscan undermine
students'sense of controlandautonomyovertheirachievementoutcomesandreduce
theirintrinsicmotivation(e.g., Deci & Ryan, 1985; Lepper,1988; Ryan & Stiller,
1991). This is particularlytruewhen studentsalreadypossess intrinsicmotivation
for the activity in question;Lepper,Greene, and Nisbett (1973) used the compelling phrase "turningplay into work" to describe such effects. In addition to the
"turningplay into work"issue, Ryan and Stiller discussed how extrinsic rewards
can change students' perceptionof control from the sense that they control their
own achievement outcomes to the sense that the teacher is controlling them. In
Ryanand Stiller's view, this change underminesstudents'motivationto engage in
the activity. These researchersthus have advocatedcareful and judicious use of
extrinsicrewardsin classroom settings.
Cameronand Pierce (1994) performeda meta-analysisof the researchon the
effects of rewardson intrinsicmotivationand concluded that,in general,rewards
do notundermineintrinsicmotivation.They statedthatthe only timerewardsappear
to undermineintrinsicmotivationis when expected tangiblerewardsare given to
students.Ryan and Deci (1996), Kohn (1996), and Lepper,Keavney, and Drake
(1996) all providedvigorous critiquesof Cameronand Pierce's work,focusing on
the way in which the meta-analysiswas conducted (in particular,their focus on
overall effects ratherthan on more particularconditionsunderwhich rewardsaffect intrinsicmotivation)andthe ways in which effects were includedin the analysis. They furtherarguedthatCameronand Pierce knew the answerthey wantedto
obtain from the meta-analysisbefore they began, which biased their approachto
the analysis. In a response to their critics, Cameronand Pierce (1996) defended
97
their meta-analyticpractices and did not change their conclusion that, overall,
rewardsdo not undermineintrinsicmotivation.
We cannot resolve this debate here, althoughwe do believe that Cameronand
Pierce's critics raised a numberof importantissues that the authorsdid not completely rebutin their reply. Most importantis Cameronand Pierce's focus on the
overall effects of rewardratherthana morefine-grainedconsiderationof the various conditionsunderwhich rewardsmay or may not undermineintrinsicmotivation. As Lepperet al. (1996) and Ryan and Deci (1996) emphasized,focusing on
overall effects is both simplistic and misleading. In this regard,it is importantto
note that Lepperet al. (1996) and Ryan and Deci (1996) stated that they are not
completely opposed to the use of extrinsic rewards;there are conditions under
which such rewards can foster student motivation. This debate has served the
importantfunctionof moving away from the "overalleffects" questionto a closer
considerationof when extrinsic rewardsshould and should not be used.
SocialSupportFromTeachers
Birch and Ladd (1996) discuss how teachersand peers can facilitate (or sometimes debilitate)children'searlyadjustmentto school andschool motivation.There
appearto be severalaspectsof students'relationswith teachersthatarekey: closeness, dependency,and conflict. Close relations with teachersprovide supportto
studentsand facilitatetheirschool involvement.In contrast,dependencyand conflict relate negatively to children'sschool motivation.When childrenare too dependenton teachers,they are less likely to adjustwell to the classroomand, thus,
are less positively motivated.Conflict with teachersis negatively relatedto both
students' involvement in school and their regardfor school (how much they like
it).
Birch and Ladd (1996) focused on children'searly adjustmentto school, particularlyrelationswith teachersduringthe primarygrades.Otherresearchershave
found thatrelationswith teachersduringmiddle school influence students'motivation. Goodenow (1993) found that students'perceptionsof supportfrom teachers and their sense of belongingness in their classrooms related strongly to their
perceivedvaluingof the schoolworkthey were doing. Similarly,Wentzel(in press)
foundthatstudents'academicgoals andperformancewere stronglyrelatedto their
sense thattheirmiddle school teacherswere "caring."This work providesfurther
evidence of the importantinfluenceof positive teacher-studentrelationson student
motivation.
SCHOOLTRANSITIONSAND CHANGESIN STUDENTMOTIVATION

In the previoussections, we discussed some classroompracticesthatcan facilitate or debilitate aspects of students' motivation. Andermanand Maehr (1994),
Eccles andMidgley (1989), Eccles et al. (1998), Harter(1996), andWigfield et al.
(1996) discussed how many classroomand school environmentsmove from practices thatfostermasterygoals andintrinsicmotivationto practicesthatpromotean
ego goal orientationin students.Such practicesalso can contributeto the declines
in students' academic competence beliefs, interest, and intrinsic motivation disThis content downloaded from 200.52.254.249 on Mon, 30 Mar 2015 20:34:49 UTC
98
cussed earlier (see also Eccles, Wigfield, Midgley, et al., 1993). Many of these
changes occur as childrenmove from elementaryto middle school and may be at
least partiallyattributableto the largersize and structureof the middle school. We
focus here on the particularchanges in teacher-studentrelationsand social organizationsof classroomsandschools. Those most relevantto ourdiscussioninclude
changes in authoritydifferential,the "personal"characterof student-teacherrelations, the organizationof instruction,and the stabilityof peer networks.
First, as studentsmove into middle school, they experience majorchanges in
authorityrelationships.Middle school classrooms, as comparedwith elementary
school classrooms,arecharacterizedby a greateremphasison teachercontroland
discipline and fewer opportunities for student decision making, choice, and
self-management(e.g., Brophy & Evertson, 1976; Midgley & Feldlaufer,1987;
Moos, 1979).
Second, middle school classrooms,as comparedwith elementaryschool classrooms, often are characterizedby less personaland positive teacher-studentrelationships (see Eccles & Midgley, 1989). For example, Trebilco, Atkinson, and
Atkinson(1977) foundthatstudentsreportedless favorableinterpersonalrelations
with their teachersafterthe transitionto secondaryschool thanbefore. Similarly,
Feldlaufer,Midgley, and Eccles (1988) found that both students and observers
ratedjunior high school math teachers as less friendly,less supportive,and less
caring than the teachers the same studentshad 1 year earlier in the last year of
elementaryschool. As discussed earlier,positive and emotionallywarmrelations
with teachersrelate to students'motivationand adjustmentin the classroom.
Third, the shift to middle school is associated with systematic changes in the
organizationof instruction.In particular,studentsexperienceincreasesin practices
such as whole-classtaskorganizationandbetween-classroomabilitygrouping(see
Eccles & Midgley, 1989). As mentionedearlier,such changesarelikely to increase
social comparison,concerns aboutevaluation,and competitiveness,all of which
could foster an ego goal orientationanda strongerfocus on perceivedcompetence
(see Rosenholtz & Simpson, 1984). For childrendoing less well in school, such
changes should lead to a decrease in their competencebeliefs.
Finally,peernetworksaredisruptedwhen childrenchange schools. Manytimes
friends are separatedfrom one another,and it takes some time for childrento reestablishsocial networks.Wigfieldet al. (1991) foundthatchildren'ssense of social
competence was lowest immediatelyafterthe transitionto junior high school, in
comparisonwith before the transitionor laterin junior high school. Such disruptions could influencechildren'sacademicmotivationas well. Peersandmotivation
are consideredin more detail in the next section.
In summary,afterthe transitionto middle school, manyaspectsof the classroom
and school organizationseem to have negative effects, particularlyon students'
competence beliefs, achievementgoals, and intrinsicmotivationfor learning.As
mentioned earlier,Maehr and Midgley (1996) present a detailed account of an
attemptto changethe organizationof a middleschoolusingprinciplesfromachievement goal theory, the TARGET approachdiscussed by Ames (1992a, 1992b).
Throughcollaborationswith teachersandschool administrators,manypracticesin
99
the school were changed in orderto facilitate masteryratherthan ability-focused

goal orientations.MaehrandMidgley's accountof the process of reorganizingthe
school is fascinating,and many positive resultsdid occur as a consequenceof the
change.However,the researchersencounteredmanydifficultissues throughoutthe
process, including resistanceto change, difficulties in adjustingthe rigid middle
school bell schedule,andparents'objectionsthattheirhigh-achievingstudentsdid
not receive enough recognition.These difficulties illustratethe continuingchallenges inherentin school reformefforts.
THE PEER GROUPAND STUDENTS'MOTIVATION

In this discussion of social influences on motivation,we have focused primarily
on teacher-studentrelationsandon characteristicsof classroomorganizationsthat
influence students' motivation. Peers are anotherimportantsocial influence on
motivation (see Webb & Palincsar,1996, for a review of the researchon group
processes in the classroom).In this section, we focus on severalcrucialways peers
influence each other's learningand motivation.
Friendship and Motivation

In Connell and Wellborn's (1991) model of motivation, relatedness is considered a major need. Relations with peers are an importantway children can
fulfill their need for relatedness. There has been much research focused on the
relations among social competence, academic success, and motivation. Children are able to focus more of their attention on learning if they feel socially
supported and well liked by both their peers and the adults in their learning
context and if they feel that they belong (Goodenow, 1993; Ladd, 1990;
Wentz-Gross, Siperstein, Untch, & Widaman, 1997). Researchers have found
that children who are accepted by their peers and who have good social skills
do better in school and have more positive motivation. Furthermore, social
competence and social support can help ease school transitions, including the
transition from home to school (Ladd, 1990). In contrast, socially rejected
and highly aggressive children are at risk for poorer achievement and motivation (e.g., Asher & Coie, 1990; Ladd & Price, 1987; Parker & Asher, 1987;
Wentzel, 1991b, 1993; for furtherdiscussion and review, see Berndt & Keefe,
1996; Birch & Ladd, 1996). Moreover, it appears that both the quantity of
children's friendships with peers and the quality of the friendships are important; in fact, the quality of children's friendships may be especially key, particularly as children move into adolescence (see Berndt & Keefe, 1996). We
should note that the major motivational constructs studied in this work are
children's liking/disliking of school and school involvement/avoidance; thus,
in certain respects, only limited aspects of motivation have been assessed by
these researchers.
We discussed earlierresearchon teachers'relationswith studentsand students'
motivation.Birch and Ladd (1996) have encouragedresearchersto examine the
effects on motivation of different kinds of supportteachers and peers provide
children. They raised questions about the potential compensatoryroles teachers
100 Reviewof Researchin Education,23

and peers might provide. Perhapsstudentswith poor peer relations compensate
by relating well with teachers;the converse also could be the case. Or perhaps
each type of relationshipis tied to a particularaspect of children'sschool adjustment and motivation. These interestingquestions await future research.
Communitiesof Learners
Another importantaspect of the work on cooperativelearning discussed earlier is the role of peers as colearners.Doing learningactivities in a social context
is usually considered more "fun,"and that perception alone may enhance students' motivation (Slavin, 1990; Stevens & Slavin, 1995). Peers can also help
each otherunderstandand learnthe materialthroughgroupdiscussion, sharingof
resources,modeling academic skills, and interpretingand clarifyingthe tasks for
each other (Schunk, 1987; Schunk & Zimmerman,1997; Sieber, 1979). Each of
these characteristicsshouldinfluenceachievementthroughits impacton children's
expectationsfor success, their valuing of the activity,and their focus on learning
ratherthan performancegoals.
Otherresearchersalso have notedthe benefits of social interactionandcollaborationfor children'smotivationand achievement.We focus on some illustrative
workin the literacyfield;otherexamplescanbe foundin OldfatherandDahl (1994)
and Santa BarbaraDiscourse Group (1992). Turner(1995, 1997) noted that anotherbenefit of open literacytasks is thatthey allow opportunitiesfor social collaboration.The social activities childrenengaged in took many forms, including
modeling, peer tutoring,and discussion of the materialsbeing read. The importance of these activitiesresidednotjust in the resultsstudentsproducedbut in the
processes of learning.Turnerdiscussed the importanceof the class working together to create a communityof literacy learnersratherthan being eitherunconnected or competing individuals.
Guthrieandhis colleagues (e.g., Guthrieet al., 1996; Guthrie& McCann,1997)
developeda readinginstructionalprogram,ConceptOrientedReadingInstruction,
designedto facilitatestudents'engagementin literacyandliteracyskills. A crucial
aspect of the programis collaborationwith peers to facilitate students' skills and
thematicunderstandings,along with their motivation.Thus, researchersincreasingly arerealizinghow social collaborationcan enhancestudents'motivationand
performance.
HelpSeeking FromPeers
One importantfocus of workon motivationthatrelatesto the notionof communities of learnersis students'help seeking.Nelson Le Gall andhercolleagues (e.g.,
Nelson Le Gall & Glor-Sheib,1985; Nelson Le Gall & Jones, 1990) andNewman
andhis colleagues (e.g., Newman, 1990, 1994;Newman& Goldin, 1990;Newman
& Schwager,1995) have developedmodels of children'shelp seeking;bothgroups
stress the differencebetween appropriateand inappropriatehelp seeking. Appropriate help seeking (labeled instrumentalhelp seeking by Nelson Le Gall and
adaptivehelp seeking by Newman)involves (a) deciding thatone does not understandhow to complete a problemafter having tried to solve it on one's own, (b)
Wigfield,Eccles, and Rodriguez: Children's Motivation 101

figuring out what and whom to ask, (c) developing a good question to obtain the
needed help, and (d) processingthe informationreceived appropriatelyin orderto
complete the problem-solvingtask. Instrumentalhelp seeking can foster motivation by keeping childrenengaged in an activity when they experiencedifficulties.
Indeed, Newman has found that children are most likely to seek adaptive help
when they are self-regulated, possess strong competence beliefs, and have
mastery-orientedlearninggoals (see Newman, 1994).
It is importantto note that, in general, children in elementaryand secondary
school do not frequentlyengage in help seekingeitherin classroomsettings(Nelson
Le Gall & Glor-Scheib, 1985) or when they are stronglyencouragedto do so in a
laboratorystudy (e.g., Newman & Schwager, 1995). This finding suggests that
many children view help seeking as an admission that they cannot complete a
problemon their own, an admissionthat is hardfor them to make.
A numberof factorsinfluencechildren'swillingness to seek help. These include
bothpersonalfactors,suchas children'smotivation(e.g., competencebeliefs,values,
andgoals) andaffectivereactions(e.g., Does help seeking cause embarrassment?),
andcontextualfactors,suchas classroomenvironment.Furthermore,
therearesome
individual
and
in
differences
children's
interesting
developmental
help seeking.
For instance,Nelson Le Gall andDeCooke (1987) found that, amongelementaryschool-aged children,boys are more likely than girls to be asked for help (even
though girls often performbetter than boys in elementaryschool). Despite this
overall difference,each sex prefersaskingfor help from same-sexpeers. In a study
of third-,fifth-, andseventh-gradechildren,Newman andGoldin(1990) foundtwo
interestingdevelopmentaldifferencesin children'shelp seeking. At all ages, childrenwho enjoyed challenge were more likely to seek help. In the two youngerage
groups, greaterdependencyrelatedto help seeking; however, among the seventh
graders,a greaterfocus on independentmasteryrelatedto help seeking. Furthermore, the seventh graderswere more sensitive to both the costs (looking stupid,
being embarrassed)and the benefits of help seeking than were the younger children.
Equally important,if not more important,are the environmentalfactors. Children are more likely to seek help when teachers are warm and supportiveand
organizethe instructionaroundlearningor task goals ratherthan performanceor
ego goals, when they work in small groups ratherthan in whole-class situations,
and when they work on certainkinds of tasks or activities (e.g., math)ratherthan
other kinds of achievementtasks (see Newman, 1994, for a full review).
The studies of classroom goal structure and help seeking are particularly
relevant to this chapter. Newman and Schwager (1995) gave third- and sixthgrade children math reasoning problems under either learning or performance
goal conditions and examined the ways in which children asked for help.
Children in the learning goal condition were more likely to ask if their answers were correct; Newman and Schwager interpreted this as a desire to
receive corrective feedback about their performance. Sixth graders were less
likely to seek help in the performance goals condition than in the learning
goals condition, and they attempted to complete as many problems as pos-

sible as quickly as possible. In a somewhat similar study, Butler and Neuman
(1995) assessed help seeking under learning (task focus, in their terminology) and performance (ego focus) conditions. They also assessed children's
explanations for why they and other children do not seek help when it is
needed. They found that second- and sixth-grade children were more likely
to ask for help in the task condition than in the ego goal condition. The sixth
graders in the ego goals condition were more likely than children in the other
groups to say that anotherchild would not ask for help to avoid looking stupid.
RyanandPintrich(1997) assessed earlyadolescents'perceptionsof the benefits
and threatsof seeking help. They hypothesizedthat studentswith a positive sense
of competence(bothcognitiveandsocial) andwithtask-focusedachievementgoals
shouldbe more likely to seek help, whereasthose with a low sense of competence
and performancegoals should avoid help seeking. Moreover,they proposedthat
students'attitudestowardhelpseeking(seeingit as a threatorbenefit)wouldmediate
the relationsjust discussed. Using regressionanalyses, they found that perceived
cognitive and social competencepredictednegatively students'attitudethat help
seeking was threatening.Childrenwith task-focusedgoals were more likely to see
help seekingas beneficial,whereasthosewithrelativelystrongerperformancegoals
saw it as a threat.Cognitiveandsocial competencenegativelypredictedavoidance
of help seeking, whereaschildren'stask-focusedgoals directlyandpositively predictedadaptivehelp seeking.Furthermore,the attitudinalvariablesmediatedsome
of the links among perceived competence, achievementgoals, and help seeking.
These results provide furtherevidence that studentswho perhapsneed the most
help (those with a lower sense of competence)are the ones least likely to engage
in help seeking (see Ryan,Hicks, & Midgley, 1997, for furtherevidence regarding
this point).
Peer GroupInfluenceson Student Motivation

Much of the early work on peer influences on school achievementfocused on
the negative effects of peer groups on adolescents' commitmentto doing well in
school (e.g., Coleman,1961).Investigatorsnow have examinedthe specific mechanisms by which peer groups can have either a positive or negative effect on motivationacrossvariousactivity settings.These researchersdocumentthatchildren
join togetherin peer groupssharingsimilarmotivationalorientationsand activity
preferencesand that such groupingsreinforceand strengthentheir existing motivationalorientationandactivitypreferencesover time (e.g., Berndt& Keefe, 1996;
Berndt,Laychak,& Park,1990;Kindermann,
McCollam,& Gibson,1996).Whether
such effects are positive or negative depends on the natureof the peer groups'
motivationalorientation.High-achievingchildrenwho seek out otherhigh achievers as friends develop even more positive academic motivation over time. By
contrast,low achieverswho join a low-achievingpeer groupshouldbecome even
less motivatedto do school work andmore motivatedto engage in otheractivities
more consistent with their peer group's values (see Brown, 1990; Kindermann,
1993; Kindermannet al., 1996). Furthermore,the ways in which groups operate
can eitherfacilitateor debilitatemotivationand achievement.WebbandPalincsar

(1996) discussed some of the difficultiesthatcan occur in grouplearning(including the free rider effect discussed earlier) and the problem of certain children
dominatingthe group. Thus, the effects of groups on children's motivation are
complex and dependgreatlyon how the groupis structuredandthe kinds of interactions that occur within the group.
Why arechildreninfluencedby theirpeers?BerndtandKeefe (1996) suggested
severalmechanismsto explainthese influences.First,childrenwantandneed social
approval,particularlyfrom others whom they like. To gain social approval,they
will do things their friends like. Whetherthis has positive or negative effects on
motivationandachievementdependson who children'sfriendsare.If they arehigh
achievers,then the effects should be positive; if they are low achievers,problems
could arise. Second, childrenoften identifyclosely with theirfriendsand,thus, act
similarlyto them;this is particularlylikely duringthe earlyadolescentyears.Third,
children'sfriendsprovideimportantinformationabouttheirown competence,and
BerndtandKeefe made the intriguingsuggestionthatchildrenoften competewith
their friendsto enhancetheir own sense of self. For instance,high achieversmay
compete with one anotherfor good grades. This competitionmay interferewith
friendshipsif pushed too far, but it probablyis a motivatorfor children.
The role of peer groupinfluencesis likely to vary acrossage. Peersmay play an
especially importantrole vis-a-vis motivationandachievementduringadolescence
for two reasons:Adolescents aremore awareof, and concernedabout,peer group
acceptanceandspendmuchmoreunsupervisedtime withpeergroupsthanyounger
children.Consequently,adolescentsshouldbe especially vulnerableto peer group
influences on theirgoals, interests,and values. In addition,however,the potential
negative impact of peers may be especially problematicfor some adolescents'
academicachievementmotivation.For example, early adolescentsrate social activities as very importantandas moreenjoyablethanmost otheractivities,particularly academicactivities (Eccles et al., 1989; Wigfield et al., 1991). Furthermore,
early adolescents' physical appearanceand social acceptanceare more important
predictorsof their general self-esteem than their perceptionsof their cognitive
competence (Harter,1990). Consequently,to the extent that one's peer groupdevalues academic achievementrelative to other goals and activities, adolescents
should shift their focus away from academic pursuitsin order to maintainpeer
acceptance.
The work on the institutionalconsequences of ability grouping provides an
exampleof these processes. Severalresearchers(e.g., Dreeben& Barr,1988; Eder
& Felmlee, 1984) have suggested that ability groupinginfluences motivationand
achievement,in part, by its influence on one's peer group. The evidence of this
effect is mixed for the elementaryschool years. But it is more likely to be truein
the adolescentyears, when between-class abilitygroupingandcurriculartracking
become more common. These institutionalpracticesresultin much greatersegregation of peer groups based the courses they are taking (Fuligni et al., 1995;
Rosenbaum, 1980; Vanfossen,Jones, & Spade, 1987). Consequently,we should
expect greaterevidence of social stratificationeffects of ability groupingon students' motivationduringthe high school years.

CONCLUSION
In this chapter,we have discussed the natureof students'academicmotivation
andits relationto importantbehavioraloutcomes such as performancein different
academic subjects,choices of which activities to pursue,effort exerted, and persistence. We noted thatmuch of the work on students'motivationover the last 25
years has focused on a variety of student self-perceptions,along with students'
interests,values, andgoals, as crucialcomponentsof motivation.These constructs
mediate students'performance,choices, and efforts.We also discussed the developmentof these differentaspectsof motivation,describinghow students'motivation often declines duringthe school years and relatesmore closely to theiractual
performance.
We reviewed the large and growing body of researchon how differentschool
and classroomenvironmentalfactorsinfluence students'motivation,and we discussed peer groups and motivation.Unfortunately,findings from many different
studies suggest thatthe declines in motivationwe discussed often can be tracedto
changes in the classroom environmentand teaching practices;this seems to be
particularlytrue as studentsmove from elementaryto middle school. On a more
positive note, we also discusseda numberof teachingpracticesandenvironmental
conditionsthatcan facilitatestudents'self-perceptions,values, interests,andgoals.
We also noted thatpeers often can have a positive influence on each other's motivation.We close this chapterwith a discussion of some importantissues remaining to be addressedin these differentareas.
One issue concernshow the many differentmotivationconstructswe discussed
areinfluencedtogetherby differentsocial featuresof classrooms(see Stipek,1996).
We defined numerousaspects of students' motivation in the first section of the
chapter.Yet, researchersassessing the ways in which differentsocial factorsin the
school environmentinfluencemotivationoften assess only certainof these aspects.
For instance,researchersfocus on students'goal orientationsperhaps,or competence beliefs, but not a numberof motivationconstructs.Orthey define and assess
motivationin more generaltermsthanthose used in the literatureon motivation;
the researchon cooperativelearning'seffects on motivationis one exampleof this.
To obtaina more complete understandingof the influences of differentsocial and
environmentalfactors on motivation,one must assess motivationmore fully.
We also must considermore closely how multiple aspects of motivationinfluence students'choices of differentactivitiesand theirperformance.This often has
been done in studieswithinthe academicdomain(e.g., Meece et al., 1990;Pintrich
& De Groot, 1990; Wigfield & Guthrie,1997). Also, there is growing interestin
how differentkinds of motivation,particularlysocial and academic motivation,
influence students' performance (e.g., Juvonen & Wentzel, 1996; Wentzel &
Wigfield, in press). Wentzel and Wigfield (in press) discuss how social and academic goals may interactto influence students' performanceand how different
classroom factors influence both social and academicgoals. But the study of the
joint influence of social and academic motivationon students' outcomes is just
beginning,andmuchmoreworkremainsto be done in this importantnew research
area. Crucialissues that researchersneed to consider carefully are the degree to

which the constructsof social and academic motivation are similar or different
and the interplay of these constructs in influencing students' outcomes (see
Wentzel & Wigfield, in press, for furtherdiscussion).
Anothercrucial issue is how motivation should be conceptualizedas theorists
move to the view that learningis an inherentlysocial activity.If learningtruly is
a social phenomenonand individualscannot be separatedfrom their social context, what is the role of self-perceptionsin motivatingstudents'behavior?Some
might arguethat they are irrelevant.Othersbelieve that self-perceptionsstill are
important,but perhapsin modifiedform (for furtherdiscussion, see Hickey, 1997;
Marshall, 1992). Our point is that a truly social approachto learningmay be incompatiblewith the thingsthatmanymotivationresearchersstudy.This incompatibility encompassesdifferentlevels, from relevantconstructsto ways of studying
motivation.
We of course believe stronglythat the motivationconstructswe discussed, including those conceived of primarilyas self-perceptions,have strongrelevanceto
students'educationaloutcomes and so deservecontinuedconceptualandresearch
attention.Yet, as social constructivistmodels become moreprevalent,it is increasingly importantto considerthe influence of these models on ways of conceptualizing motivation.One issue is which constructsprevalentin social cognitive approaches to motivation are compatible with social constructivist approaches.
Theoristshave begun to discuss this issue. For instance,both Marshall(1992) and
Blumenfeld (1992) focused on students'goal orientationsas at least partlycompatible with social constructivistviews. But they also noted some limitations in
prevalentviews of goal orientations.OldfatherandDahl (1994) discussedintrinsic
motivationfrom a social constructivistperspective,conceptualizingit as the continuing impulse to learn. They defined this impulse as ongoing engagement in
learningthat comes from the learner'ssocial constructionof meaning and stated
that it is characterizedby learners'involvement, curiosity,and searchfor understanding.Theirconstructthus is similarto intrinsicmotivationbut clearlytakeson
a more social constructivistflavor.
Theorists are incorporatingthese constructsinto models of motivation.For instance, Hickey (1997) presentedwhat he called a principled,pragmaticmodel of
motivationcompatiblewith social constructivistviews of learning.His model includes the beliefs and goals of individuals,socially defined constructs,and their
interactions.McCaslinandGood (1996) developed a model of co-regulatedlearning that includes individuals' self-perceptions(such as self-efficacy and attributions for success and failure) and goals and the social/environmentalcharacteristics of classrooms. They also noted that the reciprocal relations of learners'
individualmotives and characteristicsof their social environmentsare crucial to
co-regulatedlearning.While importantsteps, these models have not yet received
much research attention.
Adoptingtheview thatstudents'motivationis influencedstronglyby theirlearning
environmentimplies thatmotivationis situationspecific (see Paris& Turner,1994;
Wigfield, 1997). Yet, thereis interestingdiscussion in the field aboutthis issue; in
particular,there is discussion of how constructsmay differ in their generalityor

specificity. In his review of research on self-efficacy and competence beliefs,
Pajares (1996) noted that self-efficacy usually is defined in very task-specific
terms, whereas competence beliefs often are defined more generally. Wigfield
and Guthrie (1997) present evidence for domain-specific reading motivation
constructs.Students' interestsprobablyare relatively specific. As we discussed
earlier,however, students' goal orientationsactually may generalize across different domains, such as academics and sports (Duda & Nicholls, 1992).
Whatnow is neededis a clearercategorizationof motivationconstructsin terms
of their generality and specificity. Such a categorizationwould lead to a better
understandingof which constructsare more likely to be influenced by different
environmentalfactorsand social influences and which may be more stableacross
differentenvironments.One example of this approachis Boekaerts's(1996) categorizationsystem of differentlevels of situations,along with differentlevels of
individuals'personalitycharacteristics,and theirrelationsto learning.The levels
rangefrombroad,generalcharacteristicsof both situationsandindividualsto very
specific, unique aspects of both situationsand people. This conceptualizationallows for a clearerunderstandingof how characteristicsof the personinteractwith
characteristicsof the situationto influence learningoutcomes.
The methods used in researchon motivation are anotherimportantconcern.
Hickey (1997) noted that self-report measures, a hallmarkof social cognitive
motivationresearch,may miss importantcontextualinfluenceson motivation.Such
measuresalso do not capturestudents'experiences as they are in the midst of an
activity. There are other methodologiesthat can capturemore fully these subjective experiences.Boekaertsand her colleagues (e.g., Boekaerts, 1997; Seegers &
Boekaerts, 1993) developed an "on-line motivation"questionnairethat assesses
students'motivationas they aredoing differenttasks.Seegers andBoekaertsfound
that"on-line"assessmentswere the strongestdirectpredictorsof outcomessuch as
task performanceandemotions.Csikszentmihalyi'sexperiencesamplingmethodology is anothergood exampleof a methodfor measuringindividuals'experiences
as they are taking place (see Csikszentmihalyi& Nakamura,1989).
The study of the reciprocalrelations of school and classroom environmental
factorsandstudentmotivationalso poses importantmethodologicalchallenges.As
Stipek (1996) pointed out, the interactiveinfluence of differentschool and classroom factors on students'motivationhas not been studied fully. Detailed ethnographicstudiesareone way to look at the complex interplayof classroomenvironmental factors and students' motivation (e.g., Oldfather& McLaughlin, 1993).
Quantitativeapproachescan be used as well, and one particularlypromisingapproachis hierarchicallinearmodeling (HLM) (Bryk & Raudenbush,1992). With
HLM,researcherscan examinebothindividualdifferencesin motivationandclassroom effects on it. AndermanandYoung(1994) used HLMto studystudents'goal
orientationsin science classrooms.They found individualdifferencesin students'
goal orientationsbut also effects of particularclassroom practices on students'
goal orientations.Uncoveringthese differentinfluenceson students'goal orientations, along with other aspects of motivation,is an importanttask for futureresearch.

As we hope is clear from the researchreviewed in this chapter,much has been
learned about the natureof students' motivation and how it is influenced by the
social learningenvironmentsstudentsexperience. The complexity of these relations, as well as their situation specificity, means that much work remainsto be
done in this area.
NOTE
'In contrastto these early studies using self-reportmeasures,researchersusing different
methodologies (either asking different kinds of questions or observing young children's
reactionsto their performanceon differenttasks) have recently shown that not all young
childrenare optimistic about their abilities. In Heyman, Dweck, and Cain's (1993) study,
some preschool childrenalreadyreactednegatively to failure, reportingthat their failures
mean that they are not good people. Similarly,in Stipek, Recchia, and McClintic (1992),
preschoolchildrenas young as 2 years of age reactedboth behaviorallyandemotionallyto
failure experiences.
REFERENCES
Alexander, P. A., Kulikowich, J. M., & Jetton, T. L. (1994). The role of subject-matter
knowledge and interestin the processing of linear and nonlineartexts. Review of Educational Research, 64, 201-252.
Ames, C. (1984). Competitive, cooperative, and individualistic goal structures: A
cognitive-motivationalanalysis. In R. E. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Researchon motivation in education (Vol. 1). San Diego: Academic Press.
Ames, C. (1992a). Achievement goals and the classroom motivationalclimate. In D. H.
Schunk& J. L. Meece (Eds.),Studentperceptionin theclassroom(pp.327-348). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Ames, C. (1992b). Classrooms:Goals, structures,and studentmotivation.Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
Ames, C., & Ames, R. (Eds.). (1989). Research on motivationin education: Vol.3. Goals
and cognitions. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Anderman,E. M., & Maehr,M. L. (1994). Motivationand schooling in the middle grades.
Review of Educational Research, 64, 287-309.
Anderman,E. M., & Young, A. J. (1994). Motivation and strategyuse in science: Individual differencesand classroomeffects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,31,
811-831.
Anderson,R. C., Shirey, L. L., Wilson, P. T., & Fielding, L. G. (1987). Interestingnessof
children'sreadingmaterial.In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr(Eds.), Aptitude,learning, and
instruction:Vol.3. Conativeand affectiveprocess analyses (pp. 287-299). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Asher, S. R., & Coie, J. D. (Eds.). (1990). Peer rejection in childhood. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Au, K. H. (1997). Ownership,literacyachievement,and studentsof diverse culturalbackgrounds.In J. T. Guthrie& A. Wigfield (Eds.), Reading engagement:Motivatingreaders throughintegrated instruction(pp. 168-182). Newark, DE: InternationalReading
Association.
Au, K. H., Scheu, J. A., Kawakami,A. J., & Herman,P. A. (1990). Assessment and accountabilityin a whole literacy curriculum.The Reading Teacher,43, 574-578.
Bandura,A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Towarda unifyingtheoryof behavioralchange.Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura,A. (1986). Social foundations of thoughtand action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura,A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:W. H. Freeman.
Baumert,J. (1995, April). Gender science interest,teachingstrategiesand socially shared
beliefs about gender roles in 7thgraders-A multi-levelanalysis. Paperpresentedat the
annualmeeting of the AmericanEducationalResearchAssociation, San Francisco.
Berndt,T. J., & Keefe, K. (1996). Friends'influence on school adjustment:A motivational
analysis. In J. Juvonen& K. Wentzel (Eds.), Social motivation:Understandingschool
adjustment.New York:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Berndt,T. J., Laychak,A. E., & Park,K. (1990). Friends' influence on adolescents' academic achievementmotivation:An experimentalstudy.Journalof EducationalPsychology, 82, 664-670.
andchildren's
intheschoolenvironment
Birch,S.H.,&Ladd,G.W.(1996).Interpersonal
relationships
The role of teachersandpeers.In J. Juvonen& K. Wentzel(Eds.),Social
schooladjustment:
New York:CambridgeUniversityPress.
motivation:Understanding
schooladjustment.
Blumenfeld,P.C. (1992). Classroomlearningandmotivation:Clarifyingandexpandinggoal
theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 272-281.
Blumenfeld,P., Pintrich,P. R., Meece, J., & Wessels, K. (1982). The formationand role of
self-perceptionsof abilityin elementaryschool classrooms.ElementarySchool Journal,
82, 401-420.
Boekaerts, M. (1996). Personalityand the psychology of learning. EuropeanJournal of
Personality, 10, 377-404.
Boekaerts, M. (1997). Motivated learning: The study of student*situationtransactional
units. Manusciptsubmittedfor publication.
Boggiano, A. K., Shields, A., Barrett,M., Kellam, T., Thompson,E., Simons, J., & Katz,
P. (1992). Helplessness deficits in students:The role of motivationalorientation.Motivation and Emotion, 16, 271-296.
Borkowski,J. G., Carr,M., Rellinger,E., & Pressley,M. (1990). Self-regulatedcognition:
Interdependenceof metacognition,attributions,and self-esteem. In B. Jones & L. Idol
(Eds.),Dimensionsof thinkingand cognitiveinstruction(Vol. 1). Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
Brookover,W., Beady, C., Flood, P., Schweitzer,J., & Wisenbaker,J. (1979). School social
systems and studentachievement:Schools can make a difference.New York:Praeger.
Brophy,J. E., & Evertson,C. M. (1976). Learningfrom teaching: A developmentalperspective. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Brown, B. B. (1990). Peer groupsandpeer culture.In S. S. Feldman& G. R. Elliott (Eds.),
At the threshold:The developing adolescent (pp. 171-196). Cambridge,MA: Harvard
University Press.
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush,S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applicationsand
data analysis methods.Newbury Park,CA: Sage.
Butler,R. (1989a). Interestin the task and interestin peers' work:A developmentalstudy.
Child Development,60, 562-570.
Butler,R. (1989b). Masteryversus ability appraisal:A developmentalstudy of children's
observationsof peers' work. Child Development,60, 1350-1361.
Butler,R. (1990). The effects of masteryand competitiveconditionson self-assessmentat
differentages. Child Development,61, 201-210.
Butler,R. (1993). Effects of task- and ego-achievementgoals on informationseeking during task engagement.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 18-31.
Butler,R., & Neuman,O. (1995). Effects of taskandego achievementgoals on help-seeking
behaviors and attitudes.Journal of EducationalPsychology, 87, 261-271.
Butler,R., & Ruzany,N. (1993). Age and socializationeffects on the developmentof social
comparisonmotives and normativeability assessments in kibbutz and urbanchildren.
Cameron,J., & Pierce, W. D. (1994). Reinforcement,reward,and intrinsicmotivation:A
meta-analysis.Review of EducationalResearch, 64, 363-423.
Protests
Cameron,J., & Pierce,W. D. (1996).The debateaboutrewardsandintrinsicmotivation:
andaccusationsdo not alterthe results.Reviewof EducationalResearch,66, 39-51.

Coleman, J. S. (1961). The adolescent society. New York:Free Press.
Connell, J. P. (1985). A new multidimensionalmeasureof children'sperceptionof control.
Connell, J. P., Spencer, M. B., & Aber, J. L. (1994). Educationalrisk and resilience in
African Americanyouth: Context, self, and action outcomes in school. Child Development, 65, 493-506.
Connell,J. P., & Wellborn,J. G. (1991). Competence,autonomy,andrelatedness:A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In R. Gunnar& L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Minnesota
symposia on child psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 43-77). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Corno, L., & Kanfer,R. (1993). The role of volition in learning and performance.In L.
Darling-Hammond(Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 29). Washington,DC:
AmericanEducationalResearchAssociation.
Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worthperspective on motivationand
school reform.New York:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Crandall,V. C., Katkovsky,W., & Crandall,V. J. (1965). Children'sbeliefs in their own
controlof reinforcementsin intellectual-academicachievementsituations.ChildDevelopment, 36, 91-109.
Crockenberg,S., & Bryant,B. (1978). Socialization:The "implicitcurriculum"of learning
environments.Journal of Research Developmentin Education, 12, 69-78.
Csikszentmihalyi,M. (1988). The flow experienceandits significancefor humanpsychology. In M. Csikszentmihalyi& I. S. Csikszentmihalyi(Eds.), Optimalexperience (pp.
15-35). Cambridge,England:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Csikszentmihalyi,M., & Nakamura,J. (1989). The dynamics of intrinsic motivation:A
study of adolescents.In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivationin education. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Deci, E. L. (1992). Therelationof interestto themotivationof behavior:A self-determination
theory perspective.In K. A. Renninger,S. Hidi, & A. Krapp(Eds.), The role of interest
in learning and development(pp. 43-71). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivationand self-determinationin human
behavior. New York:Plenum.
Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A. J., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M. (1981). An instrument to
assess adults' orientationstowardcontrol versus autonomywith children:Reflections
on intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 645-650.
Deci, E., L., Vallerand,R. J., Pelletier,L. C., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivationand education: The self-determinationperspective.EducationalPsychologist, 26, 325-346.
Dreeben, R., & Barr, R. (1988). Classroom composition and the design of instruction.
Sociology of Education, 61, 129-142.
Duda,J. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1992). Dimensionsof achievementmotivationin schoolwork
and sport. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 84, 290-299.
Dunkin, M., & Biddle, B. (1974). The study of teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart&
Winston.
Dweck, C. S., & Elliott, E. S. (1983). Achievement motivation. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.),
Handbookof child psychology (Vol. 4, 3rd ed., pp. 643-691). New York:Wiley.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. (1988). A social-cognitiveapproachto motivationand personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.
Eccles, J. S. (1984). Sex differences in achievement patterns.In T. Sonderegger (Ed.),
NebraskaSymposiumon Motivation(Vol. 32, pp. 97-132). Lincoln: University of NebraskaPress.
Eccles, J. S. (1987). Genderroles and women's achievement-relateddecisions. Psychology
of WomenQuarterly,11, 135-172.
Eccles, J. S. (1994). Understandingwomen's educationaland occupationalchoice: Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-relatedchoices. Psychology of WomenQuarterly, 18, 585-609.

Eccles, J. S., Adler,T.F.,Futterman,R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala,C. M., Meece, J. L., & Midgley,
C. (1983). Expectancies,values, andacademicbehaviors.In J. T. Spence (Ed.),Achievement and achievementmotivation(pp. 75-146). San Francisco:W. H. Freeman.
Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., & Meece, J. L. (1984). Sex differencesin achievement:A test of
alternatetheories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 26-43.
Eccles, J. S., & Harold,R. D. (1991). Genderdifferencesin sport involvement:Applying
the Eccles' expectancy-valuemodel. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 3, 7-35.
classfit:Developmentallyappropriate
Eccles,J. S., & Midgley,C. (1989). Stage/environment
rooms for early adolescents.In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivationin
education (Vol. 3, pp. 139-181). New York:Academic Press.
Eccles, J., Midgley, C., & Adler, T. (1984). Grade-relatedchanges in the school environment: Effects on achievementmotivation.In J. G. Nicholls (Ed.), The developmentof
achievementmotivation(pp. 283-331). Greenwich,CT: JAI Press.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the achiever:The structureof adolescents' academic achievementrelated-beliefsand self-perceptions.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 215-225.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Flanagan, C., Miller, C., Reuman, D., & Yee, D. (1989).
Self-concepts, domain values, and self-esteem: Relations and changes at early adolescence. Journal of Personality,57, 283-310.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Harold,R., & Blumenfeld,P. B. (1993). Age and genderdifferences in children'sself- and task perceptionsduringelementaryschool. ChildDevelopment, 64, 830-847.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Midgley,C., Reuman,D., Mac Iver,D., & Feldlaufer,H. (1993).
Negativeeffects of traditionalmiddle-schoolson students'motivation.ElementarySchool
Journal, 93, 553-574.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivationto succeed. In W. Damon
(Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg(Vol. Ed.), Handbookof child psychology (5th ed., Vol. 3).
New York:Wiley.
Eder,D., & Felmlee, D. (1984). The developmentof attentionnormsin ability groups.In
P. L. Peterson,L. C. Wilkinson,& M. Hallinan(Eds.), Thesocial contextof instruction:
Grouporganizationand group processes (pp. 189-208). Orlando,FL:
Academic Press.
Elliott, A. J., & Harackiewicz,J. M. (1996). Approachand avoidance achievementgoals
and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 70, 968-980.
Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approachto motivationand achievement.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5-12.
Epstein,J. L. (1988). Effective schools or effective students:Dealing with diversity.In R.
Haskins & B. MacRae (Eds.), Policies for America'spublic schools: Teacherequity
indicators. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Feldlaufer,H., Midgley, C., & Eccles, J. S. (1988). Student,teacher,and observerperceptions of the classroomenvironmentbefore and afterthe transitionto junior high school.
Journal of Early Adolescence, 8, 133-156.
Findley, M. J., & Cooper, H. M. (1983). Locus of control and academic achievement:A
literaturereview. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 419-427.
Ford, M. E. (1992). Human motivation: Goals, emotions, and personal agency beliefs.
Newbury Park,CA: Sage.
Fraser,B. J., & Fisher,D. L. (1982). Predictingstudents'outcomes from theirperceptions
of classroom psychosocial environment.AmericanEducationalResearchJournal, 19,
498-518.
Fuligni, A. J., Eccles, J. S., & Barber,B. L. (1995). The long-termeffects of seventh-grade
ability groupingin mathematics.Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 58-89.
Gamoran,A., & Mare,R. D. (1989). Secondaryschool trackingand educationalinequality:
orneutrality?
AmericanJournalofSociology,94, 1146-1183.
Compensation,reinforcement,

Goodenow,C. (1993). Classroombelongingamongearlyadolescentstudents:Relationships
to motivation and achievement.Journal of Early Adolescence, 13, 21-43.
Grolnick,W. S., & Ryan,R. M. (1987). Autonomyin children'slearning:An experimental
and individualdifference investigation.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
52, 890-898.
Guthrie,J. T., & McCann,A. D. (1997). Characteristicsof classrooms that promotemotivations and strategiesfor learning. In J. T. Guthrie& A. Wigfield (Eds.), Reading engagement: Motivating readers throughintegratedinstruction(pp. 128-148). Newark,
DE: InternationalReading Association.
Guthrie,J. T., VanMeter,P., McCann,A., Wigfield, A., Bennett,L., Poundstone,C., Rice,
M. E., Faibisch, F., Hunt, B., & Mitchell, A. (1996). Growth in literacy engagement:
Changes in motivations and strategies during Concept-OrientedReading Instruction.
Reading Research Quarterly,31, 306-325.
Harter,S. (1981). A new self-reportscale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientationin the
classroom:Motivationalandinformationalcomponents.DevelopmentalPsychology,17,
300-312.
Harter,S. (1982). The Perceived CompetenceScale for Children.Child Development,53,
87-97.
Harter,S. (1983). Developmentalperspectiveson the self-system. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.),
Handbookof child psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 275-385). New York:Wiley.
Harter, S. (1990). Causes, correlates and the functional role of global self-worth: A
life-span perspective. In J. Kolligian & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Perceptions of competence and incompetence across the life-span (pp. 67-98). New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Harter,S. (1996). Teacherand classmate influences on scholastic motivation,self-esteem,
and the level of voice in adolescents. In J. Juvonen & K. Wentzel (Eds.), Social motivation: Understandingschool adjustment.New York:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Harter,S., & Connell, J. P. (1984). A model of children's achievementand related selfperceptorsof competence,control,and motivationalorientation.In J. G. Nicholls (Ed.),
Advances in motivationand achievement(Vol. 23, pp. 219-250). Greenwich,CT: JAI
Press.
Helmke, A. (1993). The developmentof learningfrom kindergartento fifth grade.Journal
of Educational Psychology, 7, 77-86.
Hedelin,L., & Sjoberg,L. (1989). The developmentof interestsin the Swedish comprehensive school. EuropeanJournal of Psychology of Education,4, 17-35.
Heyman, G. D., Dweck, C. S., & Cain, K. M. (1993). Young children's vulnerabilityto
self-blame and helplessness: Relationshipsto beliefs about goodness. Child Development, 63, 401-415.
Hickey, D. T. (1997). Motivationand contemporarysocio-constructivistinstructionalperspectives. Educational Psychologist, 32, 175-193.
Hidi, S. (1990). Interestand its contributionas a mental resourcefor learning.Review of
Educational Research, 60, 549-571.
Hidi, S., & Baird, W. (1986). Interestingness-A neglected variablein discourse processing. Cognitive Science, 10, 179-194.
Hidi, S., & Baird, W. (1988). Strategies for increasing text-based interest and students'
recall of expository texts. Reading Research Quarterly,23, 465-483.
Hidi, S., & Berndorff,D. (1996, June). Situationalinterestand learning.Paperpresented
at the Seeon Conferenceon Gender and Interest,Kloster, Seeon, Germany.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperationand competition:Theoryand research. Edina, MN: Interaction.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative,
competitive,and individualisticlearning (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Juvonen, J., & Wentzel, K. R. (Eds.) (1996). Social motivation: Understandingschool

Kagan,S. (1985). Dimensionsof cooperativeclassroomstructures.In R. Slavin, S. Sharan,
S. Kagan,R. Hertz-Lazarowitz,C. Webb,& R. Schmuck(Eds.), Learningto cooperate,
cooperating to learn (pp. 67-96). New York:Plenum.
Kage, M., & Namiki, H. (1990). The effects of evaluationstructureon children'sintrinsic
motivation and learning.Japanese Journal of EducationalPsychology, 38, 36-45.
Kindermann,T. A. (1993). Naturalpeer groups as contexts for individual development:
The case of children'smotivationin school. DevelopmentalPsychology, 29, 970-977.
Kindermannn,T. A., McCollam, T. L., & Gibbson,E., Jr. (1996). Peer networksand students' classroom engagement during childhood and adolescence. In J. Juvonen & K.
Wentzel (Eds.), Social motivation: Understandingchildren'sschool adjustment.Cambridge, England:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Kohlberg,L. (1966). A cognitive-developmentanalysisof children'ssex-role concepts and
attitudes. In E. E. Macoby (Ed.), The developmentof sex differences. (pp. 82-172).
Stanford,CA: StanfordUniversity Press.
Kohn, A. (1996). By all available means: Cameronand Pierce's defense of extrinsic motivators.Review of EducationalResearch, 66, 1-4.
Krapp,A., Hidi, S., & Renninger,K. A. (1992). Interest,learningand development.In K.
A. Renninger,S. Hidi, & A. Krapp(Eds.), The role of interestin learning and development (pp. 3-25). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kuhl,J. (1987). Action control:The maintenanceof motivationalstates. In E Halisch & J.
Kuhl (Eds.), Motivation,intention,and volition (pp. 279-307). Berlin:Springer-Verlag.
Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. L. (1987). Effects of ability grouping on studentachievement.
Equity & Excellence, 23, 22-30.
Ladd,G. W.,& Price,J. M. (1987). Predictingchildren'ssocial andschool adjustmentfollowing the transitionfrom preschoolto kindergarten.ChildDevelopment,58, 1168-1189.
Lehrke,M., Hoffmann,L., & Gardner,P. L. (Eds.). (1985). Interestsin science and technology education. Kiel, Germany:Institutfur die Padagogikder Naturwissenschaften.
Lepper,G., Greene,D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Underminingchildren'sintrinsicinterest
with extrinsicrewards:A test of the "overjustification"hypothesis.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 129-137.
Lepper,M. R. (1988). Motivationalconsiderationsin the study of instruction.Cognition
and Instruction,5, 289-310.
Lepper,M. R., Keavney, M., & Drake, M. (1996). Intrinsicmotivation and extrinsic rewards:A commentaryon Cameronand Pierce's meta-analysis.Review of Educational
Research, 66, 5-32.
Mac Iver,D. (1987). Classroomfactorsand studentcharacteristicspredictingstudents'use
of achievementstandardsduringability self-assessment.ChildDevelopment,58, 12581271.
Mac Iver,D. J., Reuman,D. A., & Main, S. R. (1995). Social structuringof school: Studying what is, illuminatingwhat could be. Annual Review of Psychology, 46.
Maehr,M. L., & Anderman,E. M. (1993). Reinventingschools for early adolescents:Emphasizing task goals. Elementary School Journal, 93, 593-610.
Maehr,M. L., & Midgley,C. (1996). Transformingschool cultures.Boulder,CO:Westview
Press.
Markus,H., & Wurf,E. (1987). The dynamicself-concept:A social psychologicalperspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299-337.
Marsh,H. W. (1989). Age and sex effects in multipledimensionsof self-concept:Preadolescence to early adulthood.Journal of EducationalPsychology, 81, 417-430.
Marsh,H. W., Barnes,J., Cairns,L., & Tidman,M. (1984). Self-DescriptionQuestionnaire:
Age and sex effects in the structureand level of self-conceptfor preadolescentchildren.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 940-956.
Marsh, H. W., Chessor, D., Craven, R., & Roche, L. (1995). The effects of gifted and
talentedprogramson academic self-concept:The big fish strikesagain.AmericanEducational Research Journal, 32, 285-319.

Marsh,H. W., Craven,R. G., & Debus, R. (1991). Self-concepts of young children5 to 8
years of age: Measurementand multidimensional structure.Journal of Educational
Psychology, 83, 377-392.
Marsh,H. W., & Hocevar,D. (1985). The applicationof confirmatoryfactoranalysesto the
studyof self-concept:Firstandhigher-orderfactorstructuresandtheirinvarianceacross
age groups. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 562-582.
Marshall,H. H. (1992). Seeing,redefining,andsupportingstudentlearning.InH. H. Marshall
(Ed.), Redefiningstudent learning: Roots of educational change (pp. 1-32). Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
McCaslin, M., & Good, T. L. (1996). The informalcurriculum.In D. C. Berliner& R. C.
Calfee (Eds.),Handbookof educationalpsychology(pp.622-670). New York:Macmillan.
Meece, J. L. (1991). The classroomcontext and students'motivationalgoals. In M. Maehr
& P. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivationand achievement(Vol. 7, pp. 261-286).
Greenwich,CT: JAI Press.
Meece, J. L. (1994). The role of motivationin self-regulatedlearning.In D. H. Schunk&
B. J. Zimmerman(Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 25-44).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Meece,J.L., Blumenfeld,P.B., & Hoyle,R. H. (1988).Students'goal orientationsandcognitive
engagementin classroomactivities.Journalof EducationalPsychology,80, 514-523.
Meece, J. L., & Miller,S. D. (1996, April).Developmentalchanges in children'sself-reports
of achievementgoals, competence,and strategy use during the late elementaryyears.
Paperpresentedat the annualmeeting of the AmericanEducationalResearchAssociation, New York City.
Meece, J. L., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1990). Predictorsof math anxiety and its consequences for young adolescents' course enrollment intentions and performancesin
mathematics.Journal of EducationalPsychology, 82, 60-70.
Midgley, C., & Feldlaufer,H. (1987). Students' and teachers' decision-makingfit before
and afterthe transitionto junior high school. Journalof EarlyAdolescence, 7, 225-241.
Moos, R. H. (1979). Evaluating educational environments.San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Nelson Le Gall, S., & DeCooke, P. A. (1987). Same sex and cross-sex help exchanges in
the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 67-71.
Nelson Le Gall, S., & Glor-Sheib,S. (1985). Help seeking in elementaryclassrooms:An
observationalstudy. ContemporaryEducational Psychology, 10, 58-71.
Nelson Le Gall, S., & Jones, E. (1990). Cognitive-motivationalinfluences on task-related
help-seeking behavior of Black children. Child Development,61, 581-589.
Newman, R. S. (1990). Children'shelp-seekingin the classroom:The role of motivational
factors and attitudes.Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 71-80.
Newman, R. S. (1994). Adaptivehelp-seeking:A strategyof self-regulatedlearning.In D.
H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman(Eds.), Self-regulationof learning and performance:
Issues and educational applications (pp. 283-301). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Newman, R. S., & Goldin, L. (1990). Children'sreluctanceto seek help with schoolwork.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 92-100.
Newman,R. S., & Schwager,M. T. (1995). Students'help-seekingduringproblemsolving:
Effects of grade,goal, and priorachievement.AmericanEducationalResearchJournal,
32, 352-376.
Nicholls, J. G. (1979a). Development of perceptionof own attainmentand causal attributions for success and failure in reading.Journal of EducationalPsychology, 71, 94-99.
Nicholls, J. G. (1979b). Quality and equality in intellectual development: The role of
motivation in education.American Psychologist, 34, 1071-1084.
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievementmotivation:Conceptionsof ability,subjectiveexperience, task choice, and performance.Psychological Review,91, 328-346.
Nicholls, J. G. (1990). What is ability and why are we mindful of it? A developmental
perspective. In R. J. Sternberg& J. Kolligian (Eds.), Competenceconsidered (pp. 1140). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

M. (1989).Individualdifferencesin academic
Nicholls,J.G.,Cheung,P.,Lauer,J.,& Patashnick,
motivation:Perceivedability,goals, beliefs, andvalues. Learningand IndividualDifferences, 1, 63-84.
Nicholls, J. G., Cobb, P., Yackel, E., Wood, T., & Wheatley,G. (1990). Students'theories
of mathematicsand theirmathematicalknowledge:Multipledimensionsof assessment.
In G. Kulm (Ed.), Assessing higher order thinking in mathematics (pp. 137-154).
Washington,DC: AmericanAssociation for the Advancementof Science.
Nichols, J. D. (1996). Cooperativelearning:A motivationaltool to enhancestudentpersistence, self-regulation,and efforts to please teachersand parents.EducationalResearch
and Evaluation,2, 246-260.
Nichols, J. D. (in press). The effects of cooperativelearningon studentachievementand
motivationin a high school geometry class. ContemporaryEducationalPsychology.
Nolen, S. B., & Nicholls, J. G. (1993). Elementaryschool pupils' beliefs aboutpracticesfor
motivatingpupilsin mathematics.BritishJournalof EducationalPsychology,63, 414-430.
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track:How schools structureinequality.New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Oldfather,P., & Dahl, K. (1994). Towarda social constructivistreconceptualizationof
intrinsic motivationfor literacy learning.Journal of Reading Behavior 26, 139-158.
Oldfather,P., & McLaughlin,J. (1993). Gainingand losing voice: A longitudinalstudy of
students' continuing impulse to learn across elementaryand middle school contexts.
Research in Middle Level Education, 17, 1-25.
Pajares,F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of EducationalResearch, 66, 543-578.
Pallas, A. M., Entwisle, D. R., Alexander,K. L., & Stulka, M. F. (1994). Ability-group
effects: Instructional,social, or institutional?Sociology of Education,67, 27-46.
Paris, S. G., & Turner,J. C. (1994). Situatedmotivation.In P. Pintrich,D. Brown, & C. E.
Weinstein(Eds.),Studentmotivation,cognition,and learning:Essays in honorof Wilbert
J. McKeachie (pp. 213-237). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Parker,J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment:Are
low-accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357-389.
Parsons,J. E., & Ruble, D. N. (1977). The developmentof achievement-relatedexpectancies. Child Development,48, 1075-1079.
Patrick,H.,Hicks,L., & Ryan,A. M. (1997).Relationsof perceivedsocialefficacyandsocialgoal
pursuitto self-efficacyforacademicwork.Journalof EarlyAdolescence,17, 109-128.
Pekrun, R. (1993). Facets of adolescents' academic motivation: A longitudinal
expectancy-valueapproach.In M. Maehr& P. Pintrich(Eds.), Advances in motivation
and achievement(pp. 139-189). Greenwich,CT: JAI Press.
Pintrich,P., & De Groot,E. V. (1990). Motivationaland self-regulatedlearningcomponents
of classroomacademicperformance.Journalof EducationalPsychology,82, 33-40.
Pintrich,P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptualchange: The
role of motivationalbeliefs andclassroomcontextualfactorsin the processof conceptual
change. Review of EducationalResearch, 63, 167-199.
Pintrich,P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivationin education: Theory,research,and
applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill-PrenticeHall.
Renninger,K. A. (1990). Children'splay interests,representation,andactivity.In R. Fivush
& J. Hudson(Eds.), Knowingand rememberingin young children(pp. 127-165). Cambridge, England:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Renninger,K. A., Hidi, S., & Krapp,A. (Eds.). (1992). The role of interestin learningand
development.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Renninger,K. A., & Wozniak,R. H. (1985). Effect of intereston attentionalshift, recognition, and recall in young children.DevelopmentalPsychology, 21, 624-632.
Reuman,D. A. (1989). How socialcomparisonmediatestherelationbetweenability-grouping
practices and students' achievement expectancies in mathematics.Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 178-189.

Reuman,D. A., Mac Iver,D., Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (1987, April). Changesin students'
mathematics motivation and behavior at the transition to junior high school. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association,
Washington,DC.
Roe, A., & Siegelman, M. (1964). The origin of interests. Washington,DC: American
Personnel and GuidanceAssociation.
Rosenbaum,J. E. (1980). Social implications of educationalgrouping. In Review of research in education (Vol. 7, pp. 361-401). Washington,DC: American Educational
ResearchAssociation.
Rosenholtz, S. J., & Simpson, C. (1984). The formationof ability conceptions:Developmental trend or social construction?Review of EducationalResearch, 54, 31-63.
Rosenholtz, S. R., & Rosenholtz, S. J. (1981). Classroomorganizationand the perception
of ability. Sociology of Education,54, 132-140.
Rotter,J. B. (1954). Social learningand clinicalpsychology.EnglewoodCliffs, NJ:Prentice
Hall.
Ruble, D. (1983). The development of social comparison processes and their role in
achievement-relatedself-socialization.In E. T. Higgins, D. N. Ruble, & W. W. Hartup
(Eds.), Social cognition and social development:A socioculturalperspective (pp. 134157). New York:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Ruble, D. N., & Martin,N. (1998). Gender.In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg(Vol.
Ed.), Handbookof child psychology (Vol. 3, 5th ed.). New York:Wiley.
Rutter,M., Maughan,B., Mortimore,P., & Ouston, J. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours:
Secondaryschools and their effects on children.Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity
Press.
Ryan, A. M., Hicks, L., & Midgley, C. (1997). Social goals, academicgoals, and avoiding
help seeking in the classroom. Journal of Early Adolescence, 17, 152-171.
Ryan, A. M., & Pintrich,P. R. (1997). "ShouldI ask for help?"The role of motivationand
attitudesin adolescents'help seeking in mathclass. Journal of EducationalPsychology,
89, 329-341.
Ryan,R. M. (1992). Agency and organization:Intrinsicmotivation,autonomy,andthe self
in psychological development.In J. Jacobs (Ed.), NebraskaSymposiumon Motivation
(Vol. 40, pp. 1-56). Lincoln: University of NebraskaPress.
Ryan,R. M., Connell,J. P.,& Deci, E. L. (1985). A motivationalanalysisof self-determination
and self-regulationin education.In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Researchon motivation
in education: Vol.2. The classroom milieu (pp. 13-51). London: Academic Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1996). When paradigmsclash: Commentson Cameronand
Pierce's claim that rewardsdo not undermineintrinsic motivation. Review of Educational Research, 66, 33-38.
Ryan,R. M., & Grolnick,W. S. (1986). Originsandpawnsin the classroom:Self-reportand
projective assessments of individual differences in children's perceptions.Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 550-558.
Ryan, R. M., & Stiller,J. (1991). The social contexts of internalization:Parentand teacher
influenceson autonomy,motivation,andlearning.In M. L. Maehr& P.R. Pintrich(Eds.),
Advances in motivationand achievement(Vol. 7). Greenwich,CT: JAI Press.
Santa BarbaraClassroomDiscourse Group. (1992). Constructingliteracy in classrooms:
Literateaction as social accomplishment.In H. H. Marshall(Ed.), Redefiningstudent
learning: Roots of educational change (pp. 119-150). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest,learning,andmotivation.EducationalPsychologist, 26, 299323.
Schiefele, U. (1996a). Motivationand learning with text. Gottingen,Germany:Hogrefe.
Schiefele, U. (1996b). Topic interest,text representation,and qualityof experience. ContemporaryEducational Psychology, 21, 3-18.
Schiefele,U., & Krapp,A. (in press).Topicinterestandfreerecallof expositorytext.Learning
and IndividualDifferences.

Schunk,D. H. (1987). Peermodels andchildren'sbehavioralchange.ReviewofEducational
Research, 57, 149-174.
Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacy duringself-regulatedlearning.Educational Psychologist, 25, 71-86.
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academicmotivation.EducationalPsychologist,
26, 207-231.
Schunk,D. H. (1994). Self-regulationof self-efficacy andattributionsin academicsettings.
In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman(Eds.), Self-regulationof learning and performance. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schunk,D. H., & Meece, J. L. (Eds.).(1992). Studentperceptionsin the classroom.Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Schunk,D. H., & Zimmerman,B. J. (Eds.). (1994). Self-regulationof learning andperformance. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schunk,D. H., & Zimmerman,B. J. (1997). Developing self-efficacious readersand writers: The role of social and self-regulatoryprocesses. In J. T. Guthrie & A. Wigfield
(Eds.), Reading engagement: Motivating readers through integrated instruction (pp.
34-50). Newark, DE: InternationalReading Association.
Seegers, G., & Boekaerts, M. (1993). Task motivation and mathematicsachievementin
actual task situations.Learning and Instruction,3, 133-150.
A. (1990).Cooperative
motivation
tolearn,andacademicachievement.
Sharan,
S.,&Shaulov,
learning,
In S. Sharan(Ed.),Cooperativelearning:Theoryand research.New York:Praeger.
Sharan,Y., & Sharan,S. (1992). Expandingcooperative learning throughgroup investigation. New York:TeachersCollege Press.
Shell, D. F., Colvin, C., & Bruning, R. H. (1995). Self-efficacy, attribution, and
outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement: Grade-level
and achievement-level differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87,
386-398.
Shuell, T. J. (1996). Teachingand learningin a classroomcontext. In D. C. Berliner& R.
C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 726-764). New York:
Macmillan.
Sieber, R. T. (1979). Classmatesas workmates:In formal peer activity in the elementary
school. Anthropologyand Education Quarterly,10, 207-235.
Skinner,E. A. (1990). Age differencesin the dimensionsof perceivedcontrolduringmiddle
childhood:Implicationsfor developmentalconceptualizationsand research.Child Development,61, 1882-1890.
Skinner,E. A. (1995). Perceivedcontrol,motivation,and coping.ThousandOaks,CA: Sage.
Skinner,E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivationin the classroom:Reciprocaleffects
of teacherbehaviorand studentengagementacross the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 571-581.
Skinner,E. A., & Connell,J. P. (1986). Controlunderstanding:Suggestionsfor a developmentalframework.In M. M. Baltes & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), Thepsychology of controland
aging. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A
best-evidence synthesis. Review of EducationalResearch, 60, 471-499.
Slavin,R. E. (1995). Cooperativelearning:Theory,research,andpractice (2nded.). Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Slavin, R. E. (1996). Researchon cooperativelearningand achievement:What we know,
what we need to know. ContemporaryEducationalPsychology, 21, 43-69.
Stevens, R. J., & Slavin, R. E. (1995). The cooperativeelementaryschool: Effects on students' achievement, attitudes, and social relations. American Educational Research
Journal, 32, 321-351.
Stipek, D. J. (1984). The developmentof achievementmotivation.In R. Ames & C. Ames
(Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 1, pp. 145-174). New York: Academic Press.

Stipek, D. J. (1996). Motivationand instruction.In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.),
Handbookof educationalpsychology (pp. 85-113). New York:Macmillan.
Stipek, D. J., & Daniels, D. H. (1988). Declining perceptionsof competence: A consequence of changes in the child or in the educationalenvironment?Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 352-356.
Stipek, D. J., & Gralinski,J. H. (1996). Children'sbeliefs about intelligence and school
performance.Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 397-407.
Stipek, D. J., & Mac Iver, D. (1989). Developmentalchange in children'sassessment of
intellectual competence. Child Development,60, 521-538.
Stipek, D. J., Recchia, S., & McClintic, S. M. (1992). Self-evaluationin young children.
Monographsof the Society for Researchin Child Development,57(2, Serial No. 226).
Teigen, K. H. (1987). Intrinsicinterest and the novelty-familiarityinteraction.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 28, 199-210.
Thorkildsen,T. A., Nolen, S. B., & Fournier,J. (1994). What is fair? Children'scritiques
of practicesthatinfluence motivation.Journalof EducationalPsychology,86, 475-486.
Tobias,S. (1994). Interest,priorknowledge, andlearning.Reviewof EducationalResearch,
64, 37-54.
Todt,E. (1990). Development of interest.In H. Hetzer (Ed.), Applieddevelopmentalpsychology of childrenand youth. Wiesbaden,Germany:Quelle & Meyer.
Travers,R. M. W. (1978). Children'sinterests.Unpublishedmanuscript.
Trebilco, G. R., Atkinson, E. P., & Atkinson, J. M. (1977, November). The transitionof
studentsfrom primaryto secondary school. Paperpresentedat the annualconferenceof
the AustralianAssociation for Research in Education,Canberra.
Student
Trickett,E. J., & Moos, R. H. (1974). Personalcorrelatesof contrastingenvironments:
satisfactionin highschoolclassrooms.AmericanJournalof Community
Psychology,2, 1-12.
Turner,J. C. (1995). The influence of classroom contexts on young children'smotivation
for literacy.Reading Research Quarterly,30, 410-441.
Turner,J. C. (1997). Startingright:Strategiesfor engaging young literacylearners.In J. T.
Guthrie& A. Wigfield (Eds.), Reading engagement:Motivatingreaders throughintegrated instruction(pp. 183-204). Newark, DE: InternationalReading Association.
Urdan,T.C., & Maehr,M. L. (1995). Beyonda two-goaltheoryof motivationandachievment:
A case for social goals. Review of EducationalResearch, 65, 213-244.
Vanfossen, B. E., Jones, J. D., & Spade, J. Z. (1987). Curriculumtracking and status
maintenance.Sociology of Education, 60, 104-122.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The developmentof higher psychological processes. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity Press.
Wade, S. E. (1992). How interestaffects learningfrom text. In K. A. Renninger,S. Hidi,
& A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development(pp. 255-277).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Webb, N. M., & Palincsar,A. S. (1996). Groupprocesses in the classroom. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbookof educationalpsychology (pp. 841-873). New
York:Macmillan.
Weiner,B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 71, 3-25.
Weiner,B. (1985). An attributionaltheory of achievementmotivationand emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548-573.
Weiner,B. (1992). Humanmotivation:Metaphors,theories, and research.NewburyPark,
CA: Sage.
Weisz, J. P. (1984). Contingencyjudgments and achievementbehavior:Deciding what is
controllableand when to try. In J. G. Nicholls (Ed.), The developmentof achievement
motivation(pp. 107-136). Greenwich,CT: JAI Press.
Wentz-Gross,M., Siperstein,G. N., Untch, A. S., & Widaman,K. F. (1997). Stress, social
support,and adjustmentof adolescentsin middle school. Journal of Early Adolescence,
17, 129-151.

Wentzel,K. R. (1989). Adolescent classroomgrades, standardsfor performance,and academic achievement:An interactionistperspective.Journal of EducationalPsychology,
81, 131-142.
Wentzel,K. R. (1991a). Relations between social competenceand academicachievement
in early adolescence. Child Development,62, 1066-1078.
Wentzel,K. R. (1991b). Social competenceat school: Relationbetween social responsibility and academic achievement.Review of Educational Research, 61, 1-24.
Wentzel, K. R. (1993). Does being good make the grade? Social behaviorand academic
competence in middle school. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 85, 357-364.
Wentzel,K. R. (1994). Relationsof social goal pursuitto social acceptance,and perceived
social support.Journal of EducationalPsychology, 86, 173-182.
Wentzel,K. R. (1996). Social goals and social relationshipsas motivatorsof school adjustment. In J. Juvonen & K. R. Wentzel (Eds.), Social motivation:Understandingschool
Wentzel, K. R. (in press). Student motivation in middle school: The role of perceived
pedagogical caring. Journal of EducationalPsychology.
Wentzel,K. R., & Wigfield, A. (in press). Academic and social motivationalinfluenceson
students' academicperformance.EducationalPsychology Review.
Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-valuetheoryof achievementmotivation:A developmental perspective.EducationalPsychology Review, 6, 49-78.
Wigfield, A. (1997). Readingmotives: A domain-specificapproachto motivation.Educational Psychologist, 32, 59-68.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (1992). The developmentof achievementtask values:A theoretical analysis. DevelopmentalReview, 12, 265-310.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J., Mac Iver, D., Reuman,D., & Midgley, C. (1991). Transitionsat
early adolescence: Changes in children'sdomain-specificself-perceptionsand general
self-esteem across the transitionto junior high school. DevelopmentalPsychology, 27,
552-565.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., & Pintrich,P. R. (1996). Development between the ages of
eleven and twenty-five. In D. C. Berliner& R. C. Calfee (Eds.), The handbookof educational psychology. New York:Macmillan.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Yoon, K. S., Harold,R. D., Arbreton,A., Freedman-Doan,K.,
& Blumenfeld, P. C. (1997). Changes in children'scompetence beliefs and subjective
task values across the elementaryschool years: A three-yearstudy.Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 451-469.
Wigfield, A., & Guthrie,J. T. (1997). Relationsof children'smotivationfor readingto the
amountand breadthof theirreading.Journal of EducationalPsychology, 89, 420-432.
Zimmerman,B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulatedlearning.Journal of
Zimmerman,B. J., Bandura,A., & Martinez-Pons,M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment:The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personalgoal setting.American
EducationalResearch Journal, 29, 663-676.
Zimmerman,B. J., & Bonner,S. (in press). A social cognitive view of strategiclearning.
In C. E. Weinstein & B. L. McCombs (Eds.), Strategic learning: Skill, will, and selfregulation.Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.
Zimmerman,B. J., & Martinez-Pons,M. (1990). Studentdifferencesin self-regulatedlearning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of
Manuscriptreceived August 15, 1997
Accepted December24, 1997

Motivation in School ECCLES

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motivation in School ECCLES

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Development of Children's Motivation in School Contexts

Author(s): Allan Wigfield, Jacquelynne S. Eccles and Daniel Rodriguez

Reviewof Researchin Education,23

1978). Learningin classrooms is not done in isolation; instead, it occurs in the

Individuals' Sense of Competence and Control

Wigfield,Eccles, and Rodriguez:Children'sMotivation 75

Reviewof Researchin Education,23

Wigfield,Eccles, and Rodriguez: Children's Motivation

externalto moreinternalizedregulation:external(regulationcoming fromoutside

Reviewof Researchin Education,23

Wigfield,Eccles, and Rodriguez: Children's Motivation

Reviewof Researchin Education,23

Wigfield,Eccles, and Rodriguez: Children's Motivation

positively to acceptanceby teachers.Furthermore,positive prosocialandacademic

Reviewof Researchin Education,23

Wigfield,Eccles, and Rodriguez:Children'sMotivation 83

The Development of Competence-Related Beliefs

Reviewof Researchin Education,23

Developmentof Controland Agency Beliefs

Wigfield,Eccles, and Rodriguez: Children's Motivation

Developmentof Interestand IntrinsicMotivation

Reviewof Researchin Education,23

Wigfield,Eccles, and Rodriguez: Children's Motivation

to view intelligence as stable (entity view), because an entity view of intelligence

Reviewof Researchin Education,23

Classroom- and School-Level Factors

Wigfield,Eccles, and Rodriguez: Children's Motivation

structswe have discussed in this chapter,students' goal orientationsand beliefs

Classroom Goal Structure,CooperativeLearning,

Reviewof Researchin Education,23

Wigfield,Eccles, and Rodriguez: Children's Motivation

sive planning,andrecordkeeping can be challenging as well. Thereare questions

Reviewof Researchin Education,23

Wigfield,Eccles, and Rodriguez: Children's Motivation

Reviewof Researchin Education,23

actual achievement level was controlled. However, if children compare across

TeacherBeliefs, Practices, and Supportof Students

Wigfield,Eccles, and Rodriguez: Children's Motivation

focusing on students' mastery and improvement are better at fostering and

Teacher Controland Use of Rewards

Reviewof Researchin Education,23

Wigfield,Eccles, and Rodriguez: Children's Motivation

SCHOOLTRANSITIONSAND CHANGESIN STUDENTMOTIVATION

Reviewof Researchin Education,23

Wigfield,Eccles, and Rodriguez: Children's Motivation

the school were changed in orderto facilitate masteryratherthan ability-focused

THE PEER GROUPAND STUDENTS'MOTIVATION

Friendship and Motivation

100 Reviewof Researchin Education,23

Wigfield,Eccles, and Rodriguez: Children's Motivation 101

102 Reviewof Researchin Education,23

Peer GroupInfluenceson Student Motivation

Wigfield,Eccles, and Rodriguez: Children's Motivation 103

104 Reviewof Researchin Education,23

Wigfield,Eccles, and Rodriguez: Children's Motivation 105

106 Reviewof Researchin Education,23

Wigfield,Eccles, and Rodriguez: Children's Motivation 107

108 Reviewof Researchin Education,23

Wigfield,Eccles, and Rodriguez:Children'sMotivation 109

110 Reviewof Researchin Education,23

Wigfield,Eccles, and Rodriguez:Children'sMotivation 111

112 Reviewof Researchin Education,23

Wigfield,Eccles, and Rodriguez:Children'sMotivation 113

114 Reviewof Researchin Education,23