223

British Journal of Educational Psychology (2011), 81, 223243


C 2010 The British Psychological Society

The
British
Psychological
Society
www.wileyonlinelibrary.com

Antecedents and trajectories of achievement

goals: A self-determination theory perspective
Keith D. Ciani1 , Kennon M. Sheldon2 , Jonathan C. Hilpert3
and Matthew A. Easter4
1

Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology, University of

Missouri Kansas City, USA
2
Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, USA
3
Department of Educational Studies, Indiana University Purdue University Fort
Wayne, USA
4
Department of Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology, University of
Missouri, Columbia, USA
Background. Research has shown that both achievement goal theory and selfdetermination theory (SDT) are quite useful in explaining student motivation and success
in academic contexts. However, little is known about how the two theories relate to
each other.
Aim. The current research used SDT as a framework to understand why students
enter classes with particular achievement goal profiles, and also, how those profiles may
change over time.
Sample. One hundred and eighty-four undergraduate preservice teachers in a
required domain course agreed to participate in the study.
Method. Data were collected at three time points during the semester, and both
path modelling and multi-level longitudinal modelling techniques were used.
Results. Path modelling techniques with 169 students, results indicated that students
autonomy and relatedness need satisfaction in life predict their initial self-determined
class motivation, which in turn predicts initial mastery-approach and -avoidance goals.
Multi-level longitudinal modelling with 108 students found that perceived teacher
autonomy support buffered against the general decline in students mastery-approach
goals over the course of the semester.
Conclusions. Data provide a promising integration of SDT and achievement goal
theory, posing a host of potentially fruitful future research questions regarding goal
adoption and trajectories.

Correspondence

should be addressed to Dr Keith D. Ciani, Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology, School of
Education, University of Missouri Kansas City, Room 215, Kansas City, MO 64110, USA (e-mail: [email protected]).

DOI:10.1348/000709910X517399

224

Keith D. Ciani et al.

Achievement goal theory provides a framework for understanding the conscious goals
and intentions that guide student behaviour (Dweck & Elliott, 1983), and also the
standards they use to evaluate their success (Pintrich, 2000a). Achievement goal
theorists have proposed various conceptual distinctions such as ego versus task goals,
performance versus learning goals, and performance versus mastery goals (Ames, 1992;
Dweck & Leggett, 1988). These constructs are organized by the 2 2 achievement goal
framework, in which students are said to adopt mastery-approach goals (i.e., wanting
to develop competence and learn), mastery-avoidance goals (i.e., aim to avoid not
mastering a task), performance-approach goals (i.e., showing others they are competent),
or performance-avoidance goals (i.e., avoiding looking incompetent to others) when
pursuing academic tasks (Elliot, 1999; Elliot & Church, 1997). Students can pursue more
than one goal at a time, and thus varying goal profiles are possible.
Self-determination theory (SDT) is concerned with the perceived locus of causality
(PLOC) of the motivation that people have when engaging in motivated behaviour (Deci
& Ryan, 2000); do they feel themselves to be the source of the motivation (internal PLOC),
or do they instead feel compelled against their will (external PLOC)? According to SDT,
internal motivations tend to result when people have gotten their basic psychological
needs met that is, when they come into a context feeling autonomous, competent,
and related in life. In this case, students have the inner resources needed to fully engage
with the new context. Also, contexts which support autonomy and internal PLOC tend
to promote greater engagement over time.
Research has shown that both achievement goal theory (Cury, Elliot, Da Fonseca, &
Moller, 2006; Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; Elliot & McGregor,
2001; Pintrich, 2000ac) and SDT (Grolnick & Ryan, 1987; Koestner, Ryan, Bernieri, &
Holt, 1984; Reeve, Deci, & Ryan, 2004; Vallerand, Fortier, & Guay, 1997; Vansteenkiste,
Simmons, Lens, Sheldon, & Deci, 2004) are quite useful in explaining student motivation
and success in academic contexts. However, little is known about how the two theories
relate to each other (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Urdan, 2000). In this research, we used SDT to
ask: (a) why do people start out with certain types of goals in an educational setting?, and
(b) what factors help students to maintain or move towards more adaptive goals, over
time? Marrying the two theories could benefit achievement goal theorists by helping
them to understand the dynamic precursors and later modifiers of achievement goals,
and could help benefit self-determination theorists by giving them more insight into how
broad precursor states (ones level of need satisfaction in life, at the time the course is
started) give rise to broad motivational orientations (i.e., having an internal or an external
PLOC for being in the class) which then instantiate themselves as more specific goals
within a more particular life domain or context (Elliot & Church, 1997; Vallerand et al.,
1997). Additionally, we were interested in how features of the academic context (i.e.,
teacher autonomy support) may facilitate change in students achievement goals over
the course of a semester. Below, we discuss the existing literature on achievement goal
precursors and trajectories, and then explain how SDT may be used to consolidate the
existing findings.

Achievement goal theory

Achievement goal theory provides a framework to understand students goals and
motivation by highlighting various purposes or reasons (i.e., performance or mastery)
and standards of evaluation (i.e., other-referential or self-referential) that a student
might have for pursuing particular academic tasks (Pintrich, 2000a). In this area,

Achievement goals

225

various learning-focused achievement goals have been proposed including learning,

task, task-involved, and mastery goals. Also, various performance-focused goals have
been proposed including performance, ego-involved, and normatively focused goals
(Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliot & Church, 1997; Pintrich, 2000a). Initially, performance
goals were found to predict generally negative classroom outcomes, and mastery goals
were found to predict generally positive classroom outcomes.
More recently, researchers have proposed that learners underlying approach and
avoidance motives need to be considered in achievement goal theory (Elliot, 1999; Elliot
& Church, 1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996), implying a four-fold achievement goal
typology: performance approach, in which the student approaches success compared
to others; performance avoidance, in which the student tries to avoid doing poorly
compared to others; mastery approach, in which the student tries to increase his
or her own skill level; and mastery avoidance, in which the student strives to avoid
learning less than what is possible and/or an incomplete understanding of the course
material. However, originally the mastery-avoidance construct was ignored, leading to
a trichotomous achievement goal framework. Research utilizing this framework has
found that not all performance goals are problematic: although performance-avoidance
goals are associated with negative outcomes, performance-approach goals have been
associated with both positive and negative outcomes for learners; thus on balance, it
appears that performance-approach goals can be seen as at least somewhat adaptive in
the educational context (Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; Pintrich,
2000a,b).
A current trend in the achievement goal theory literature has been to examine
the initially ignored mastery-avoidance construct. Mastery-avoidance goals are seen as
striving to avoid not mastering a task or striving to avoid not learning all there is to
learn (Elliot & Murayama, 2008). This avoidance of incompetence is made in reference
to the absolute performance on a task or in reference to individual past performances
on a task (Elliot, 1999). According to Pintrich (2000b), mastery-avoidance goals can
be hard to conceptualize. Examples such as a perfectionist not wanting to be wrong, a
basketball player not wanting to miss a free throw, a person not wanting to leave a puzzle
incomplete, and a student not wanting to learn something the wrong way have helped to
explain ways in which mastery-avoidance goals may be different from mastery-approach
or performance-approach goals (Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Pintrich, 2000b).
Research on mastery-avoidance goals has found a mixed positive and negative
pattern of correlates, similar to the performance-approach construct. Mastery-avoidance
predicts worse performance on multiple choice and essay exams (Hulleman, Trinastic,
& Harackiewicz, 2006), and also more anxiety and worry (Elliot & McGregor, 2001).
In other studies, mastery avoidance has also been positively related to a need for
achievement and unrelated to exam performance (Elliot & Murayama, 2008), positively
related to perceived competence, enjoyment, effort, and physical activity (Wang, Biddle,
& Elliot, 2007), and perceptions of an enjoyable learning climate (Morris & Kavussanu,
2008). Thus, it appears that like performance-approach goals, mastery-avoidance goals
have at least some adaptive characteristics.

Goal antecedents and trajectories

In the 2 2 goal framework, a goal can be defined as an aim that one is committed
to that serves as a guide for future behavior (Elliot & Murayama, 2008, p. 614).
Much of the research in achievement goal theory has focused on the emotion and

226

Keith D. Ciani et al.

achievement outcomes associated with students adopting certain achievement goals

(Kaplan, Middleton, Urdan, & Midgley, 2002). Limited to date are studies that explain why
students enter a class with a particular achievement goal, or goals. In one of the few such
studies (Elliot, 1999), Elliot and colleagues have shown that the motive dispositions of
fear of failure and need for achievement underlie avoidance and approach goal adoption,
respectively (Elliot & Church, 1997). Dweck and colleagues (Chiu, Hong, & Dweck,
1997; Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995) have examined lay theory predictors of achievement
goal adoption, finding that those with entity theories of ability (ability is unchanging,
so one must try to show one already has it) gravitate towards performance goals, and
those with incremental theories (ability can be changed, so one must try to get more)
gravitate towards mastery goals. Notably, both the Elliot and Dweck lines of research
explain achievement goal adoption with conceptually similar antecedent constructs:
fear of failure predicts avoidance, entity theory predicts performance. What other nonachievement-related personality states or characteristics might explain achievement
goals?
Research examining trajectories of change in students achievement goals is also
somewhat scarce (see Fryer & Elliot, 2007). Most existing studies have targeted school
transitions, peer relationships, classroom activities, concrete performance feedback, or
concrete teacher practices in order to predict changes in goals (e.g., Anderman, 1999;
Anderman & Anderman, 1999; Senko & Harackiewicz, 2005). Very few studies have
focused on teachers interpersonal demeanour and teachers way of communicating
with students, which are potentially important factors since they are likely to be under
the control of the teacher. Does the teacher seem to respect the students spontaneous
learning impulses and general sense of self, or is the teacher controlling and dictatorial?
The studies that do exist show students generally experience an array of positive
outcomes when their teachers can create a supportive learning environments (Patrick,
Turner, Meyer, & Midgley, 2003; Turner & Patrick, 2004). However, the relationship
between supportive instructional patterns and students achievement goals, and goal
trajectories, has not been determined. Below, we highlight SDT as a possible framework
to address this gap in the achievement goal literature, focusing on three aspects of
SDT: basic need satisfaction, motivation within the context, and autonomy support by
authorities within the context.

Self-determination theory
Again, SDT makes a distinction between internal and external PLOC for behaviour
does the behaviour seem to emanate from the self, or from non-internalized or selfalien factors? According to SDT, motivation can range from fully internal, to partially
internalized, to partially external, to completely external (Ryan & Connell, 1989).
Intrinsic motivation involves acting for the enjoyment of the activity, and the experience
is the reward. Identified motivation involves seeing the importance in an activity, even
when it may not be pleasurable. In contrast, introjected motivation is the drive to
engage in behaviour in order to alleviate an unpleasant internal state such as guilt or
anxiety; the person feels split, so that one part of the self has to compel the other part.
External motivation is a controlled state in which one is acting because she or he is
compelled to do so by an outside source. Having autonomous (internalized), as opposed
to controlled (non-internalized), reasons for engaging in learning activities is associated
with increased effort, persistence, achievement, and learning (Boiche, Sarrazin, Grouzet,
Pelletier, & Chanal, 2008; Gottfried, 1990; Hardre & Reeve, 2003; Ryan & Connell,

Achievement goals

227

1989; Vansteenkiste, Zhou, Lens, & Soenens, 2005). Identified, introjected, and external
regulation are all extrinsic forms of motivation. However, these motives become more
self-determined as they move from external to identified.

Psychological need satisfaction

What produces internal PLOC? SDT suggests that peoples ability to internalize what
they are doing is affected by the degree to which they experience satisfaction of their
innate psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan,
2000; Williams & Deci, 1996). The need for autonomy relates to a person wanting to
feel control and ownership over their behaviours, the need for competence is related
to feelings of effectance and efficacy, and the need for relatedness are associated with
feelings of closeness and connectedness with others (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1990). When
people enter a new context with these needs met, they are more likely to fully engage
with the challenges within that context, that is, to experience internal causation of their
behaviour (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Teacher autonomy support

The above paragraph described the ideal precursor state when entering a new life
context (i.e., any achievement situation): strong feelings of need satisfaction, which
produce positive initial motivation. However, classes last weeks or months. What
contextual factors can influence motivation after the class begins? According to SDT,
teacher autonomy support is a crucial social-contextual variable for promoting quality
student motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1987; Filak & Sheldon, 2003; Ryan & Grolnick, 1986).
Autonomy-supportive teachers provide their students as much choice as possible within
the situation. The goal is to help students connect their sense of self to the activity, so that
they can do it with a sense of ownership and volition, rather than feeling controlled and
coerced. When choice cannot be provided, autonomy-supportive teachers can take their
students perspective (I know you may not be crazy about doing this) and also provide a
meaningful rationale for the activity (but heres why it is essential for your career goals).
As a result, students are helped (over time) to internalize it by identifying the activity
with their sense of self, even if the activity is not enjoyable (Ciani, Summers, Easter, &
Sheldon, 2008; Reeve, 2006; Ryan, Connell, & Grolnick, 1992; Stefanou, Perencevich,
DiCintio, & Turner, 2004).
In sum, SDT may help to explain both the origins and the trajectories of achievement
goals. What is already known about relations between SDT and achievement goal
constructs? Urdan (2000) noted the theoretical similarities between intrinsic motivation
(SDT) and mastery-approach goals (achievement goal theory), and between external
motivation (SDT) and performance goals (achievement goal theory). Supporting this,
Duda, Chi, Newton, Walling, and Catley (1995) found a positive relationship between
mastery-approach goals and intrinsic motivation and Elliot and Church (1997) found a
negative relationship between performance-avoidance and intrinsic motivation. Elliot
and McGregor (2001) found that students self-determined motivation was positively
related to mastery-approach goals, and unrelated to performance-approach goals.
Barkoukis, Ntoumanis, and Nikitaras (2007) found that mastery-approach goals were
positively correlated with intrinsic and identified motivation and negatively correlated
with external motivation.

228

Keith D. Ciani et al.

Which causal order is preferable SDT motivations predicting subsequent achievement goal adoption, or achievement goal adoption predicting subsequent SDT motivations? Although the ordering might go either way, depending on how and when
constructs are measured, we suggest that students general context motivation serves
as a source for specific achievement goals (Carver & Scheier, 1981; Vallerand et al.,
1997). This hypothesis is based on numerous theoretical and empirical articles showing
that broader motive dispositions are profitably conceptualized as antecedents of peoples
specific action objectives (Moller, Elliot, & Friedman, 2008; Sheldon & Elliot, 1998, 1999;
Thrash & Elliot, 2001; Urdan, 2000; Urdan & Mestas, 2006); broader goals (such as I take
this class because I think it is important for my career goals) provide the motivational
energy underlying specific goals (such as my goal is to master this class material).
We tested three primary hypotheses: (1) general relatedness, competence, and
autonomy need satisfaction in life would predict internalized course motivation. Those
who experience quality relationships, feel successful, and feel themselves to be the
origin of their behaviour in this current phase of their life should report internalized
motivation for the class. (2a) Internalized course motivation would predict greater
mastery-approach goals. Those who have internalized motivation to take the class should
be interested in approaching greater skill in that class; this hypothesis devolves from the
conceptual similarity between intrinsic motivation and mastery-approach goals (Urdan,
2000). In simple terms, both constructs involve approaching task mastery for its own
sake, rather than for the sake or appeasing or pleasing an external entity or observer. In
the current model, we propose that initial global motivation for taking the class affects the
specific type of goals adopted for the class, in line with Vallerands (1997) hierarchical
model of motivation which outlines the top-down effects of global motivation upon
more contextual motivation. (2b) Internalized class motivation would predict lesser
performance-avoidance goal adoption, as has been found in some past research. Those
who identify with and expect to enjoy the class should not be prematurely anxious
about failing compared to others. Given the scarcity of previous research, no explicit
hypotheses were made regarding the strength or direction of the effect of internalized
motivation on mastery-avoidance or performance-approach goals, as these two goal types
involve a mixture of one beneficial and one problematic foci, from the perspective of
the two theories (Figure 1 consolidates Hypotheses 1 and 2 into a single path model).
(3) The perceived autonomy supportiveness of the teacher during the class should
predict positive changes in mastery-approach motivation over time. Those who feel
that the teacher cares about their perspective and gives them choice should become
more learning-focused over time. This hypothesis devolves from past SDT research
showing that autonomy-support increases intrinsic motivation, and the conceptual
overlap between intrinsic motivation and mastery-approach goals. However, we also
examined whether teacher autonomy support predicts changes in the other three
achievement goals.

Method
Participants and procedure
Data were collected from 184 undergraduate students at a large research university in
the Midwest region of the USA. All students were teacher education majors and enrolled
in a required educational psychology course. The course is taken mostly by sophomores
in the second year of the teacher education programme. Students were surveyed at three

Achievement goals

229

Masteryapproach

Relatedness
+
+

Performanceapproach
NH

Competence

Selfdetermination
NH

Masteryavoidance

Autonomy

Performanceavoidance

Need satisfaction
prior to class

Internalized class
motivation

Initial achievement
goals

Figure 1. Hypothesized path mode. Note. Plus sign indicated a hypothesized positive relationship.
NH = no explicit hypothesis was made regarding the direction of the path. Hypothesized correlations
among psychological needs and among achievement goal error terms are not central to our study, and
are not displayed in this model.

time points during the semester: during the first week of class, at the mid-point of the
semester, and the week before the final exam. Data were collected from the fall 2007 and
spring 2008 sections of the class, and later aggregated. The two sections of the course
were taught by the same instructor and followed an identical curriculum. Participating
students were mostly White (92%), sophomore status (85%), woman (74%), and had an
average age of 20 years. Participants received a $5 gift card to the university bookstore
after completing the survey at each time point (three gift cards), and were entered into a
raffle for a $100 gift card if they completed the survey at all three time points. Over 95%
of students in the class participated in the study. The first research question required
complete cases at Time 1, resulting in 169 cases. The second and third research questions
required complete cases on the predictor variable at level 2 (i.e., autonomy support),
resulting in 108 cases.

230

Keith D. Ciani et al.

Measures
Students achievement goals
The 12-item 2 2 achievement goal scale from Cury et al. (2006) was used to measure:
(a) mastery approach (three items; e.g., My goal is to completely master the material
presented in this class); (b) mastery avoidance (three items; e.g., My goal is to avoid
learning less than I possibly could); (c) performance approach (three items; e.g., My goal
is to perform better than the other students); and (d) e.g., performance avoidance (three
items; e.g., It is important for me to avoid doing poorly compared to other students) at
three time points during the semester. Students rated their goals on a seven-point Likerttype scale ranging from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree scale. In the first analysis
with a sample size of 169, Cronbachs alphas were .84 for mastery approach, .68 for
mastery avoidance, .79 for performance approach, and .80 for performance avoidance.
In the second analysis with a sample size of 108, Cronbachs alphas were as follows by
time point: mastery approach (Time 1: .87, Time 2: .86, Time 3: 90), mastery avoidance
(Time 1: .60, Time 2: .77, Time 3: .77), performance approach (Time 1: .82, Time 2: .86,
Time 3: .93), and performance avoidance (Time 1: .84, Time 2: .93, Time 3: .93).
The revised version of the Achievement Goal Questionnaire used in this study was
selected over previous versions (e.g., Elliot & McGregor, 2001) that suffered from
numerous limitations (see Elliot & Murayama, 2008, for a complete description). One
notable modification to the revised scale is the removal of motive from the goal items
(e.g., My fear of performing poorly in this class is often what motivates me has been
replaced with the revised item I am striving to avoid performing worse than others).
Elliot and colleagues have argued that achievement goals are separate from the reasons
why they are pursued (Elliot & Murayama, 2008; Elliot & Thrash, 2001), and this particular
revision is important to the current research as we strive to assess the reasons behind
students initial achievement goals and goal trajectories.

Students psychological need satisfaction

Autonomy, competence, and relatedness were each measured with six items, with three
negatively worded items that were reversed prior to analysis (Sheldon & Gunz, 2009).
The 18-item need satisfaction scale was administered once during the first week of class,
and instructed students to rate the items bearing in mind your feelings during the last
three months or so. Thus, the measure could be used to assess students general need
satisfaction prior to beginning the course, as a precursor to early achievement goal
adoption. Students rated the items on a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1
strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree scale. Cronbachs alpha for the autonomy subscale
(e.g., I was free to do things my own way) was .73, .65 for the competence subscale (e.g.,
I took on and mastered hard challenges), and .63 for relatedness (e.g., I felt appreciated
by one or more important people).

Students self-determined motivation

Students self-determined motivation was measured at a single time point during the first
week of class. The Behavioural Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire (BREQ-2; Markland
& Tobin, 2004) was used and modified to fit the education context. Students intrinsic,
identified, interjected, and external motivation was each measured to create a relative
autonomy index (RAI). Instead of asking students why do you engage in exercise, the
instructions were modified from why do you engage in exercise to why do you try

Achievement goals

231

to do well in this class. Any mention of exercise in the items was removed, and one
item for intrinsic motivation was changed from because I get pleasure and satisfaction
to because its interesting. Four items measured intrinsic motivation (e.g., because its
interesting; = .88 in first analysis, .90 in the second), three items measured identified
motivation (e.g., because its important to me; = .66 in the first analysis, .68 in the
second), four items measured introjected motivation (e.g., because I will feel guilty
if I dont; = .81 in the first analysis, .77 in the second), and four items measured
external motivation (e.g., because others will not be pleased if I dont; = .86 in the
first analysis, .86 in the second). For the purpose of the current study, we aggregated
the four subscales to create a single indicator of students self-determined motivation
with the RAI equation. This method and equation is common in self-determination
research (Levesque, Zuehlke, Stanek, & Ryan, 2004; Ommundsen & Kvalo, 2007), and
was computed as intrinsic + identifiedexternalintrojected.

Teacher autonomy support

Student perceptions of teacher autonomy support was assessed on two separate
occasions, first at the mid-point of the semester with respect to the first half of the
class (Time 2 data collection) and again at the end of the semester with respect to the
second half of the class (Time 3 data collection). We computed a single aggregate rating
of autonomy support that encompassed the whole period of the class. Teacher autonomy
support was not assessed at the beginning of the class as students had not had adequate
time to experience the instructors practices. One each occasion, students were asked
to rate the degree to which they felt their instructors engaged in autonomy-supportive
behaviours. The six-item, short-form version of the Learning Climate Questionnaire was
used (Black & Deci, 2000; Williams & Deci, 1996). Students rated the items (e.g.,
The teacher of this course conveys confidence in my ability to do well in class) on
a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree
scale. Cronbachs alpha in the current study was .91 at Time 2, and .90 at Time 3.

Analyses and results

Path analysis
Descriptive statistics and correlations
Descriptive statistics for the 169 cases used in the path model were computed (see
Table 1, for correlations, means, and standard deviations). Assumption checking revealed
that one variable, mastery-approach goals, was negatively skewed (M = 6.18; skewness
of 2.00). This was not surprising as the sample is comprised of teacher education
majors in a required education course, and it is not out of the ordinary for students to
have a learning goal in their desired field. Tabachnick and Fidell (2007a,b) suggest that
analyses on moderately skewed data can be improved with log transformations, which
can decrease the likelihood of spurious findings when data have been measured on an
arbitrary scale where transformation does not hinder interpretation (i.e., Likert scales).
Based on these authors recommendations, mastery approach was transformed with a log
transformation. A log transformation is a simple change that transforms a variable back to

232

Keith D. Ciani et al.

Table 1. Correlations among variables used in the path model (N = 169)

normality so that test assumptions are less likely to be violated.1 Subsequent correlations
among our variables supported the hypothesized relationships presented in Figure 1. All
three of the need satisfaction variables were significantly and positively correlated with
self-determined motivation. Self-determination was significantly and positively correlated
with students initial mastery-approach and -avoidance goals. Self-determination was
unrelated to students initial performance-approach and -avoidance goals.

Model specification
Structural equation modelling software (Bentler, 1995) was used to examine the fit of
our data to the hypothesized path model (see Figure 1). To assess the fit of the model,
we used the chi-square test as well as the comparative fit index (CFI) and the root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA; Hu & Bentler, 1999). Data are presumed to be
consistent with the model if the fit indices meet established cut-off criteria and if the
chi-square test is non-significant. Byrne (2006), however, points out that the chi-square
test can be overly sensitive. Evaluation of multiple global fit indices is often used as an
effective alternative to the chi-square test (Bollen, 1989; Bollen & Long, 1993; Hu &
Bentler, 1999). We followed Hu, Bentler, and Kanos (1992) recommendation of .90 for
the CFI cut-off value and MacCallum, Browne, and Sugawaras (1996) recommendation
of .10 for the RMSEA cut-off value to assess model fit. We also chose to examine other
global fit indices to draw a reasonable conclusion about the plausibility of the model
(Kline, 2005).

Model fit
A recursive path model was constructed to examine the multivariate relationship among
the study variables (see Figure 1, for hypothesized model). For the characteristics of
our sample, results indicated that the data provided an acceptable fit to the path model
(Byrne, 2006): 2 (12) = 27.55, p < .05, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .08. Alternative global fit
statistics approaching 2.0 or 2.0 are considered to be moderately skewed. Transformation of the data helped to
decrease the likelihood of error. Results from both the path model and HLM analyses were slightly improved when using the
transformed versus untransformed mastery-approach variable, yet both the untransformed and transformed analyses met
conventional cut-off requirements in the path model and significance/results of the HLM analyses were nearly identical.

1 Skew

Achievement goals

233

Masteryapproach

.30*

Relatedness
.49*
.38*

.28*
Performanceapproach

.23*
.04
Competence

.43*

.02

.27*

Selfdetermination

.06*
.27*
Masteryavoidance

.26*

.44*

.71*

.06
.20*

Autonomy

Performanceavoidance

Need satisfaction
prior to class

Internalized class
motivation

Initial achievement
goals

Figure 2. Path model results. Note. p < .01.

indices also proved satisfactory (normed fit index = .92; non-normed fit index = .89;
incremental fit index = .96; goodness-of-fit index = .96).
Parameters
In the model (see Figure 2), 17.8% of the variance in self-determination was accounted
for by the combination of the psychological need satisfaction variables, and 23.9% of
the variance in mastery approach and 7.5% of the variance in mastery avoidance was
accounted for by self-determination. Results revealed that two of the three psychological
needs were positive and significant predictors of students self-determined motivation
(autonomy, = 0.26, p < .01; relatedness, = 0.23, p < .01). Competence was unrelated
to students self-determined motivation. Self-determination was a positive and significant
predictor of students entering mastery-approach goals ( = 0.49, p < .001) and masteryavoidance goals ( = 0.27, p < .001), while being unrelated to performance-approach
and -avoidance goals.
As a whole, findings from the path model provide some support for the hypothesized
model. Specifically, when the psychological needs of students (i.e., autonomy and
relatedness) are met in the months leading up to the beginning of a course they are
more likely to report self-determined reasons for trying to do well in that course, which
leads to high reports of mastery goals.
Multi-level longitudinal modelling
Descriptive statistics and correlations
Descriptive statistics for the 108 cases used in the multi-level longitudinal models
were computed and inspected for normality (see Table 2). Inspection of the means

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and correlations for multi-level longitudinal analysis (N = 108)

234
Keith D. Ciani et al.

Achievement goals

235

indicated that mastery-approach and performance-approach goals declined, whereas

mastery- and performance-avoidance goals remained stable. This linear trend was tested
formally, below. Assumptions checking revealed that student responses to mastery
approach at Time 1 was negatively skewed (M = 6.19; skewness of 2.39). In line with
recommendations for multi-level longitudinal data, mastery approach at Times 2 and 3
were also transformed using a log transformation to allow for an accurate examination
of change over time (Hox, 2002; Singer & Willett, 2003). Correlation coefficients for the
multi-level longitudinal models are displayed in Table 2.

Unconditional growth models

Using hierarchical linear modelling (HLM) software (Raudenbush, Bryk, & Congdon,
2004), unconditional growth models were generated to estimate the per cent of total
variation in achievement goals attributable to differences within participants. That is,
this analysis provided information about how much variance there was in self-reported
achievement goals over time that could be modelled with other predictor variables
such as perceived teacher autonomy support. An unconditional growth model for each
achievement goal was generated, and results indicated that 9% of the variance in masteryapproach goals (p < .001), and 1% of the variance in performance-approach goals
(p < .05) was associated with linear time. None of the variance in mastery-avoidance or
performance-avoidance goals was associated with linear time, indicating that these goals
did not significantly change during the semester.

Multi-level longitudinal models

Based on the results of unconditional models, multi-level longitudinal models were
constructed to examine the relationship between change in students masteryapproach goals and their perceived teacher autonomy support, and change in students
performance-approach goals and their perceived teach autonomy support (see Figure 3,
for a visual depiction of the rate of change). Two separate analyses were conducted, one
for each goal. Mastery-approach and performance-approach goals were entered at level
1, and perceived teacher autonomy support was entered at level 2 to predict change

Mastery-approach

Performance-approach

High

High

MA population trajectory,
Low MAij = 0i + 1i (TIMEij ) + rij

Low

Time

PA population trajectory,
PAij = 0i + 1i (TIMEij ) + rij

Time

Figure 3. Change in mastery- and performance-approach goals over the semester.

236

Keith D. Ciani et al.

in goals during the semester. The following equation was used for both multi-level
longitudinal models.
Level 1 model:
GOALi j = 0i + 1i (TIMEi j ) + ri j
Level 2 model:
0i = 00 + u0i
1i = 10 + 11 (AUTSUP) + u1i
Results indicated that perceived teacher autonomy support was a significant and
positive predictor of the change in mastery-approach goals (p < .01; see Table 3).
The difference in the deviance statistics between the unconditional growth model
(deviance = 803.09) and the multi-level longitudinal model with autonomy support as a
predictor of change in mastery-approach goals (deviance = 794.97) indicated improved
fit: deviance = 8.12 (1 df ; p < .01). Perceived teacher autonomy support accounted
for a 17.1% proportional reduction in within-person variance between the unconditional
growth model and the multi-level longitudinal model. Perceived teacher autonomy
support was not a significant predictor of the significant decline in performanceapproach goals (p > .05).

Table 3. Multi-level longitudinal model predicting change in mastery-approach goals with autonomy
support

Results from the multi-level longitudinal modelling analyses indicated that students
who perceived their teacher as controlling experienced a significant decrease in masteryapproach goals over the course of the semester (see Table 3), whereas those who
perceived their teacher as autonomy-supportive were buffered against the sample-wide
decline in mastery-approach motivation. Teacher autonomy support was unrelated to
the decline in performance-approach goals, and mastery- and performance-avoidance
goals did not change. It is important to note that the p value for the variance in rate of
change for mastery-approach goals remained significant, indicating that there was still a
significant amount of variance that could be explained by other variables.

Achievement goals

237

Discussion
Results of the current study lend support for our suggestion that SDT constructs can
help us to understand both initial achievement goal profiles and changing profiles of
goals over time. Concerning initial profiles, students who felt more autonomy need
satisfaction in the 3 months prior to a required class reported more self-determined
reasons for taking that class. In addition, baseline relatedness need satisfaction also
predicted self-determined class motivation. The need for competence did not have
an effect on students self-determined motivation. However, it should be noted that
competence had a positive and significant bivariate correlation with self-determined class
motivation. It was only when controlling for the other two psychological needs in the
path model that the significance of the relationship between competence satisfaction and
self-determined motivation dropped out. Further research will be required to determine
if this is a stable pattern. However, one substantive interpretation of the finding is that the
more human-centred needs (autonomy and relatedness, involving quality personal and
interpersonal experience) are more important for predicting motivational internalization,
since the internalization (self-determination) measure is about the balance of internal and
external motivation, not about expected competence.
The positive relationships between general autonomy and relatedness need satisfaction in the months prior to the class and initial self-determined motivation for the class
highlights the psychological factors that affect the way different ways students orient
to a new academic context, because baseline psychological need satisfaction in life
predicted more self-determined reasons for engaging in the class. General psychological
need satisfaction is beyond the control of the teacher, but nonetheless important to
help researchers understand why students vary in their initial class motivation. We also
found that more self-determined motives for the class predicted mastery-approach goals,
as hypothesized. The path between self-determined motivation and mastery-approach
goals was the strongest of any relationship in the path model. This finding is important for
researchers interested in exploring and advancing the complementary nature of SDT and
achievement goal theory in the educational domain. Understanding students academic
goals to learn and develop competence may be advanced by scrutinizing the reasons
why they partake in the learning process.
Based on our results, students that understand the importance that a class may have
on their future, or just the interest and fun involved in a particular class, may be more
likely to adopt learning goals and less likely to be concerned about appearing competent
or incompetent.
In the path model, self-determined motivation also predicted higher masteryavoidance goals. Given the avoidance aspect of mastery-avoidance goals, this is somewhat
puzzling. It appears that in case of this mixed-motive goal, the ostensibly negative feature
of avoidance orientation was usurped by the ostensibly positive feature of mastery. It
may be that the adaptive learning orientation of self-determined students expressed
itself via the mastery part of the mixed mastery-avoidance measure, trumping the
potential maladaptive avoidance aspect of the mastery-avoidance measure. Moreover,
the characteristics of the class could have also lead self-determined students to be overly
concerned with learning all that is possible in the course. Again, these students were
mostly sophomores in the beginning of their teacher education programme, and the
course may have seemed intimidating given their limited experience with the content.
Yet another explanation is that students may have confused mastery-avoidance items
with mastery-approach items. Recent research with athletes found that high Likert

238

Keith D. Ciani et al.

scale ratings of mastery-avoidance items rarely matched the explanations students

wrote concerning their high ratings; instead, participants often gave an incongruent
response that seemed to translate mastery avoidance into mastery approach (Ciani &
Sheldon, 2010). It is unknown if this phenomenon occurred in the current study, or
whether self-determined motivation is a true antecedent of initial mastery-avoidance
goal adoption. Notably, self-determined motivation was unrelated to students initial
performance goals, of both approach and avoidance varieties. Self-determined motivation
is not about pleasing or appeasing others, providing a reasonable explanation for this null
effect.

Buffering the decline in mastery-approach goals with autonomy support

In addition to examining students psychological need satisfaction and self-determined
motivation as antecedents to initial achievement goals in a class, the current research
used multi-level longitudinal modelling to assess achievement goal trajectories over
three time points in the semester. Results from four change models (one for each goal
from the 2 2) revealed no significant change in mastery-avoidance or performanceavoidance goals; however, there was a significant decline in both mastery-approach
and performance-approach goals significantly over the semester. Teacher autonomy
support was modelled as a possible predictor of the change in both goals. Autonomy
support did not influence the change in performance-approach goals, but did emerge
as a significant and positive predictor of change in mastery approach. We hypothesized
that autonomy support and mastery-approach goals would be significantly and positively
related. Although this hypothesis was supported by our findings, the multi-level longitudinal analysis revealed the overall population trajectory for mastery-approach goals
decreased over time, indicating that autonomy support served as a buffer to prevent
the undermining of mastery-approach goals. Students who perceived their teachers
as controlling were the ones whose mastery-approach goals were undermined. This
corroborates past SDT work showing that intrinsic motivation can be undermined by
controlling teachers (Grolnick & Ryan, 1987; Ryan & Grolnick, 1986).
Previous research has shown that mastery-approach goals tend to decline as students
progress through their undergraduate programmes (Lieberman & Remedios, 2007;
Remedios, Kiseleva, & Elliott, 2008). In these studies, samples of Russian and Scottish
university students reported significantly less mastery-approach goals after their first year
at the university. The researchers also found that both interest and enjoyment tended to
decline along with the students mastery-approach goals. The current study also shows
a significant decline in mastery-approach goals over time among university students in
the USA, but also provides some insight in how this decline can be buffered against with
teacher autonomy support.
Unlike mastery-approach goals, teacher autonomy support did not affect the general
decline in students performance-approach goals. Indeed, SDT would not expect this,
as performance goals tend to come with pressures and ego-involvements that should
not necessarily be enhanced when a teacher is autonomy supportive. Finally, autonomy
support was unrelated to change in either type of avoidance goals in the HLM analysis;
feeling that the teacher encourages initiative did not cause either performance-avoidance
or mastery-avoidance goals to decline. Thus, autonomy-support was related only to the
type of achievement goal most similar to intrinsic motivation, which has received the
majority of SDT research attention.

Achievement goals

239

Limitations and future directions

A notable limitation to the current research is that only self-report measures were
employed, which can increase the risk of method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee,
& Podsakoff, 2003). However, personal motivation is typically assessed by self-report.
Another limitation is that we do not know the exact mechanisms underlying how
perceived teacher autonomy-support affected change in mastery-approach goals. It may
be that autonomy-supportive practices help to satisfy the classroom-specific needs of
students, which in turn affect change in mastery-approach goals. More research is needed
to test this assumption.
Additional, and related, limitations to the current research include the fit of the path
model, the internal consistency of select measures, and the sample size. The path model
provided acceptable fit based on criteria set forth by Hu et al. (1992) and MacCallum
et al. (1996). However, more rigorous joint criteria (CFI > .96 and SRMR < .10 or
RMSEA < .06 and SRMR < .10) required to retain a model have since been proposed
by researchers (see Hu & Bentler, 1999). Less conservative criteria were selected in the
current study given the following issues that can all affect model fit: (1) the novelty
of the model being tested; (2) the modest sample size; and (3) the relatively low, but
acceptable, internal consistency of some measures used in the path model. Though the
fit of the model in the current study is useful for theory development, future research
will be needed to replicate the model that we have proposed, with increased attention
to measurement.
Another limitation, and thus an area for future research, is that we do not know
the motivational profiles and career goals of the sample beyond this particular class.
All students in the current study are teacher education majors in a required teacher
preparation class. It would be interesting to know if the decrease in mastery-approach
goals resulted in less favourable feelings about becoming a teacher. Relatedly, it is unclear
if the changes in students mastery-approach and performance-approach goals in this
particular class would affect goal adoption in the next teacher preparation course.
Would mastery and performance-approach goals return to the initial level within a new
course, or would they stay at the depressed level found at the end of this course?
Extrapolating from our results, we might expect that declines in approach motivation
are associated with declines in general need satisfaction, which could predict further
declines in mastery-approach motivation in the future; however, assessing students over
two semesters would be necessary to address this question.
Another area for future research is to examine additional predictors of change in
students achievement goals. In the current study, a significant amount of variance in the
rate of change for mastery-approach goals remained unexplained, even after accounting
for autonomy support. Might this unexplained variance be accounted for by interpersonal
experiences with other students in the class, or by graded performance during the class?
Despite these limitations, still, we believe our data provide a promising initial integration
of SDT and achievement goal theory, posing a host of potentially fruitful future research
questions.

References
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84, 261271. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261
Anderman, L. (1999). Classroom goal orientation, school belonging, and social goals as predictors
of students positive and negative affect following the transition to middle school. Journal of
Research and Development in Education, 32, 89103.

240

Keith D. Ciani et al.

Anderman, L. H., & Anderman, E. M. (1999). Social predictors of changes in students achievement
goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 2137. doi:10.1006/ceps.1998.
0978
Barkoukis, V., Ntoumanis, N., & Nikitaras, N. (2007). Comparing dichotomous and trichotomous
approaches to achievement goal theory: An example using motivational regulations as
outcome variables. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 683702. doi:10.1348/
000709906X171901
Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equation modeling software (Version 6.1) [Computer
software]. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors autonomy support and students
autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84, 740756. doi:10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<740::AIDSCE4>3.0.CO;2-3
Boiche, J. C. S., Sarrazin, P. G., Grouzet, F. M. E., Pelletier, L. G., & Chanal, J. P. (2008). Students
motivational profiles and achievement outcomes in physical education: A self-determination
perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 688701. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.
3.688
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. Oxford: Wiley.
Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1993). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Byrne, B. M. (2006). Structural equation modeling with EQS: Basic concepts, applications, and
programming (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control theory approach
to human behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Chiu, C., Hong, Y., & Dweck, C. S. (1997). Lay dispositionism and implicit theories of personality.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1930. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.19
Ciani, K. D., & Sheldon, K. M. (2010). Evaluating the mastery-avoidance goal construct: A study of
elite college baseball players. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 127132. doi:10.1016/j.
psychsport.2009.04.005
Ciani, K. D., Summers, J. J., Easter, M. A., & Sheldon, K. M. (2008). Collaborative learning and
positive experience: Does letting students choose their own groups matter? Educational
Psychology, 28, 627641. doi:10.1080/01443410802084792
Cury, F., Elliot, A. J., Da Fonseca, D., & Moller, A. (2006). The social-cognitive model of achievement
motivation and the 2 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 90, 666679. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.666
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 523, 10241037. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1024
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1990). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In R.
Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 38. Perspectives on Motivation
(pp. 237288). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The what and why of goal pursuits: Human needs
and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227268. doi:10.1207/
S15327965PLI1104 01
Duda, J., Chi, L., Newton, M., Walling, M., & Catley, D. (1995). Task and ego orientation and
intrinsic motivation in sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26(1), 4063.
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and
reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267285. doi:10.1207/
s15327965pli0604 1
Dweck, C. S., & Elliott, E. (1983). Achievement motivation. In P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.) & E. M.
Hetherington (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality,
and development (4th ed., pp. 643691). New York: Wiley.

Achievement goals

241

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.
Psychological Review, 95, 256273. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256
Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational
Psychologist, 34, 149169. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3403 3
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance
achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218232.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.218
Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic
motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461
475. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.461
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501519. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.501
Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals: Critique,
illustration, and application. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 613628. doi:10.1037/
0022-0663.100.3.613
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2001). Achievement goals and the hierarchical model of achievement
motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 12, 139156. doi:10.1023/A:1009057102306
Filak, V., & Sheldon, K. M. (2003). Student psychological need-satisfaction and college teacher-course evaluations. Educational Psychology, 23, 235247. doi:10.1080/
0144341032000060084
Fryer, J. W., & Elliot, A. J. (2007). Stability and change in achievement goals. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 99, 700714. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.700
Gottfried, A. E. (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school children. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 82, 525538. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.3.525
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in childrens learning: An experimental and
individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 890
898. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.5.890
Hardre, P. L., & Reeve, J. (2003). A motivational model of rural students intentions to persist in,
versus drop out of, high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 347356. doi:10.
1037/0022-0663.95.2.347
Hox, J. J. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 155. doi:10.
1080/10705519909540118
Hu, L., Bentler, P. M., & Kano, Y. (1992). Can test statistics in covariance structure analysis be
trusted? Psychological Bulletin, 112, 351362. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.2.351
Hulleman, C. S., Trinastic, J. P., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2006). Approach and avoidance mastery
goals in a learning context. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Kaplan, A., Middleton, M. J., Urdan, T., & Midgley, C. (2002). Achievement goals and goal structures.
In C. Midgley (Ed.), Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning (pp. 2153).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The
Guilford Press.
Koestner, R., Ryan, R. M., Bernieri, F., & Holt, K. (1984). Setting limits on childrens behavior:
The differential effects of controlling versus informational styles on intrinsic motivation and
creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 233248.
Levesque, C., Zuehlke, A. N., Stanek, L. R., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Autonomy and competence
in German and American university students: A comparative study based on SDT. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 96, 6884. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.68
Lieberman, D. A., & Remedios, R. (2007). Do undergraduates motives for studying change as they
progress through their degrees? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 379395.
doi:10.1348/000709906X157772

242

Keith D. Ciani et al.

MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination
of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130149. doi:10.
1037/1082-989X.1.2.130
Markland, D., & Tobin, V. (2004). A modification of the Behavioral Regulation in Exercise
Questionnaire to include an assessment of amotivation. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 26, 191196.
Moller, A. C., Elliot, A. J., & Friedman, R. (2008). When competence and parents love are at stake:
Achievement goals and perceived closeness to parents in achievement context. Journal of
Research in Personality, 42, 13861391. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.05.005
Morris, R. L., & Kavussanu, M. (2008). Antecedents of approach-avoidance goals in sport. Journal
of Sports Sciences, 28, 465476.
Ommundsen, Y., & Kvalo, S. E. (2007). Autonomy-mastery, supportive or performance focused?
Different teacher behaviors and pupils outcomes in physical education. Scandinavian Journal
of Educational Research, 51, 385413. doi:10.1080/00313830701485551
Patrick, H., Turner, J. C., Meyer, D. K., & Midgley, C. (2003). How teachers establish psychological
environments during the first days of school: Associations with avoidance in mathematics.
Teachers College Record, 105, 15211558. doi:10.1111/1467-9620.00299
Pintrich, P. R. (2000a). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation
terminology, theory, and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 92104.
doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1017
Pintrich, P. R. (2000b). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning
and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544555. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.
92.3.544
Pintrich, P. R. (2000c). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P.
R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451502). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases
in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 88, 879903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., & Congdon, R. (2004). (). Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling (Version 6.0) [Computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
Reeve, J. (2006). Teachers as facilitators: What autonomy-supportive teachers do and why their
students benefit. Elementary School Journal, 106, 225236. doi:10.1086/501484
Reeve, J., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Self-determination theory: A dialectical framework for
understanding sociocultural influences on student motivation. In D. M. McInerney & S. Van
Etten (Eds.), Big theories revisited (pp. 3160). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Remedios, R., Kiseleva, Z., & Elliott, J. G. (2008). Goal orientations in Russian university
students: From mastery to performance? Educational Psychology, 28, 677691. doi:10.1080/
01443410802200257
Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining
reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749761.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.749
Ryan, R. M., Connell, J. P., & Grolnick, W. S. (1992). When achievement is not intrinsically
motivated: A theory and assessment of self-regulation in school. In A. K. Boggiano & T. S.
Pittman (Eds.), Achievement and motivation: A social-developmental perspective (pp. 167
188). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and external motivations: Classic definitions and new
directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 5467. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
Ryan, R. M., & Grolnick, W. S. (1986). Origins and pawns in the classroom: A self-report
and projective assessment of childrens perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 50, 550558. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.550
Senko, C., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2005). Regulation of achievement goals: The role of competence
feedback. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 320336. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.3.320

Achievement goals

243

Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). All personal goals are not personal: Comparing autonomous
and controlling goals on effort and attainment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
24, 546557. doi:10.1177/0146167298245010
Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being:
The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 482497.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.3.482
Sheldon, K. M., & Gunz, A. (2009). Psychological needs as basic motives, not just experiential
requirements. Journal of Personality, 77, 14671492. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00589.x
Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and
event occurrence. New York: Oxford University Press.
Stefanou, C. R., Perencevich, K. C., DiCintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Supporting autonomy in
the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership. Educational
Psychologist, 39, 97110. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3902 2
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007a). Experimental designs using ANOVA. Belmont, CA:
Duxbury.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007b). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
Thrash, T. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2001). Delimiting and integrating the goal and motive constructs in
achievement motivation. In A. Efklides, J. Kuhl, & R. Sorrentino (Eds.), Trends and prospects
in motivation research (pp. 321). Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Turner, J. C., & Patrick, H. (2004). Motivational influences on student participation in classroom
learning activities. Teachers College Record, 106, 17591785. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.
00404.x
Urdan, T. (2000, April). The intersection of self-determination and achievement goal theories:
Do we need to have goals? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Urdan, T., & Mestas, M. (2006). The goals behind performance goals. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 98, 354365. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.354
Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In M. P.
Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 271360). New York: Academic
Press.
Vallerand, R. J., Fortier, M. S., & Guay, F. (1997). Self-determination and persistence in a real-life
setting: Toward a motivational model of high school dropout. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 72, 11611176. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.5.1161
Vansteenkiste, M., Simmons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivating learning,
performance, and persistence: The synergistic role of intrinsic goals and autonomy-support.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 246260. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.246
Vansteenkiste, M., Zhou, M., Lens, W., & Soenens, B. (2005). Experiences of autonomy and control
among Chinese learners: Vitalizing or immobilizing? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96,
755764. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.755
Wang, C. K. J., Biddle, S., & Elliot, A. J. (2007). The 2 2 achievement goal framework in a physical
education context. Journal of Sport and Exercise, 8, 147168. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2005.
08.012
Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students:
A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 767
779. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.767
Received 27 August 2009; revised version received 24 May 2010