Educational Psychology

An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology

ISSN: 0144-3410 (Print) 1469-5820 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedp20

Achievement goal pursuit during the transition

from middle school to high school: its antecedents
and consequences from a self-determination
perspective

YoonJung Cho & Minseong Kim

To cite this article: YoonJung Cho & Minseong Kim (2019) Achievement goal pursuit
during the transition from middle school to high school: its antecedents and consequences
from a self-determination perspective, Educational Psychology, 39:8, 984-1004, DOI:
10.1080/01443410.2019.1600663

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1600663

Published online: 22 Apr 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 63

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cedp20
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
2019, VOL. 39, NO. 8, 984–1004
https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1600663

Achievement goal pursuit during the transition from

middle school to high school: its antecedents and
consequences from a self-determination perspective
YoonJung Choa and Minseong Kimb
a
Sungshin Women’s University, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, Korea; bChosun University, Dong-Gu,
Gwangju, Korea

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The purpose of the study was to investigate the longitudinal Received 18 August 2018
reciprocal relationship between achievement goals and self-deter- Accepted 24 March 2019
mined motivation of students transitioning from middle school to
high school. Participants were 3343 students from 9th to 11th
KEYWORDS
grade. The overall results showed that varying degrees of self-
Achievement goal
determined motivation from middle school (9th grade) influenced orientation; self-determined
the adoption of achievement goals in the first year of high school motivation; transition
(10th grade) and the pursuit of achievement goal in the 10th period; internalization
grade influenced subsequent degrees of self-determined motiv-
ation in the 11th grade. One of the notable findings is that while
the initial pursuit of mastery-approach goals might begin with
various degrees of self-determined motivation, involvement in the
pursuit of mastery-approach goals strengthened autonomous
motivation while weakening controlled motivation. The current
study consolidates the theoretical and practical utility of mastery-
approach goals in strengthening intrinsic motivation and internal-
izing external values.

The first year of high school is a critical period because students moving up from mid-
dle school to high school tend to experience significant changes in the educational
system and classroom climate (Gutman, 2006). Previous research has shown that such
environmental changes are associated with students’ motivational changes, indicated
on the one hand by a decrease in students’ intrinsic motivation and confidence and
on the other hand, by an increase in anxiety (Schunk, Meece, & Pintrich, 2014). High
school environments are more competitive than middle school (Roeser, Marachi, &
Gehlbach, 2002 cited in Schunk et al., 2014), characterized by less individualized
instruction, fewer opportunities for student choice and decision making and more
focus on comparative evaluation. Especially, in Asian countries, high school students
who prepare for rigorous college entrance exams are exposed to more competitive
learning environments. During this transitional period, most students entering high
school tend to make goal-directed self-regulatory efforts in order to handle transitional

CONTACT Minseong Kim minseong@chosun.ac.kr College of Education, Chosun University, 309 Pilmun-Daero,
Dong-Gu, Gwangju 61452, Republic of Korea
ß 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 985

challenges and adjust to the significant changes wrought by school and classroom
environments. Some students strive to boost their academic motivation by establish-
ing or modifying their achievement goals and learning strategies (Zimmerman, 2001).
Accordingly, it is vital to understand the dynamic nature of student motivation during
the transitional period. The types of achievement goals that students adopt in high
school may not only be affected by students’ prior motivation from middle school, but
they may also greatly influence students’ motivation to engage in subsequent aca-
demic activities in high school.
The present study focused on examining the dynamic relationships among motiv-
ational constructs during the transition from middle school to high school. Particularly,
we aimed to advance our understanding on how achievement goals of students enter-
ing high school are affected by their motivation in middle school and how the
achievement goals adopted in the first year of high school affect their subsequent
motivation. We utilized the self-determination perspective to investigate how varying
degrees of self-determined motives are associated with the adoption of a certain type
of achievement goal and the subsequent nature of self-determined motivation result-
ing from achievement goal pursuits over time. Prior research on the relationship
between self-determined motivation and achievement goals was often conducted
using concurrent data, which present challenges in illuminating the longitudinal causal
relationships between achievement goals and self-determined motivation.
Since previous research showed that achievement goals have important implica-
tions for predicting subsequent learning processes and academic motivation (Ames,
1992; Elliot, 2005; Schunk et al., 2014), researchers have made numerous efforts to
identify antecedents and consequences of achievement goals (Ciani, Sheldon, Hilpert,
& Easter, 2011; Harackiewicz, Barron, Carter, Lehto, & Elliot, 1997). Although we have
reached consensus on the substantial impact of contextual variables (e.g. classroom
goal structure) on achievement goal adoption, we have a limited understanding about
how one’s prior motivation plays a role as a predictor and outcome of achievement
goal pursuit, particularly during the transition from middle school to high school.

Integrating self-determination theory and achievement goal theory

Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and Achievement Goal Theory (AGT) are two promin-
ent theories of achievement motivation that have received an extensive amount of
empirical attention from motivation researchers (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Elliot, 2005; Elliot,
McGregor, & Thrash, 2002; Schunk, 2011). They are both interested in explaining ‘why’
people do what they do through the qualitative lens of motivation. Despite the com-
monality of the two theories, each theory has made a substantial contribution to the
field of motivation in its own independent way, resulting in different theoretical con-
structs. For instance, SDT focuses on underlying regulatory motives (autonomous vs.
controlled) of achievement behaviors (Deci & Ryan, 2000), while AGT focuses on
underlying purposes (competence development vs. demonstration) of achievement
behaviors (Ames, 1992; Elliot, 2005).
Self-Determination Theory posits that underlying regulatory motives are differenti-
ated on a continuum of varying degrees of self-determined motivation (Ryan & Deci,
986 Y. CHO AND M. KIM

2000; Ryan & Deci, 2002). SDT conceptualized four different types of regulatory
motives (i.e. intrinsic, identified, introjected, and external regulation) that vary on how
autonomously an individual engages in particular activities, with each regulation
reflecting the different degree to which an individual internalizes external values.
Intrinsic regulation is the highest degree of self-determined motivation because the
core characteristics of intrinsic motivation such as fun and pleasant experiences are
likely to occur naturally, without being controlled by any external motives. Therefore,
an individual whose achievement behaviors are regulated by intrinsic motives tends to
engage in a certain task for fully autonomous or self-determined reasons. The second
highest degree of self-determined motivation is identified regulation, which refers to
self-endorsed values of the task as the underlying motive of achievement behavior.
Introjected and external regulation represent lower degrees of self-determined motiv-
ation because their underlying motives lie in internal pressure/responsibility and exter-
nal pressure/rewards, respectively. More self-determined motives of achievement
behaviors (i.e. intrinsic and identified regulation) lead to optimal functioning and psy-
chological well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Deci, 2006).
Achievement Goal Theory has contributed to advancing our understanding of ‘why’
an individual strives to attain what he or she sets as a goal (Elliot, 2005; Pintrich,
2000). AGT posits that different types of achievement goals lead to qualitatively differ-
ent patterns of learning processes and outcomes (Elliot, 2005; Pintrich, 2000). Four dis-
tinct types of achievement goals have been conceptualized: mastery-approach (MA),
mastery-avoidance (MV), performance-approach (PA), and performance-avoidance (PV)
(Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Students endorsing a mastery-approach goal focus on
improving their competence by striving to gain skills and knowledge, while those
endorsing a mastery-avoidance goal are concerned about not fully understanding
learning materials or losing acquired skills and knowledge. Students adopting a per-
formance-approach goal focus on demonstrating superior performance relative to
others, while students adopting a performance-avoidance goal are concerned about
hiding their lack of competence.
There have been a few sparse attempts to integrate these two theories (SDT, AGT)
to examine how these constructs relate to each other conceptually and empirically
(Biddle, Soos, & Chatzisarantis, 1999; Ciani et al., 2011; De Brabander & Martens, 2014;
Kim, Schallert, & Kim, 2010; Spray, John Wang, Biddle, & Chatzisarantis, 2006).
Integrating both SDT and AGT in a single study is valuable in deepening our under-
standing of how qualitative aspects of motivation are developed with mutual influen-
ces on each other over time (Meece, Anderman, & Anderman, 2006). This study aimed
to integrate two major theories of motivation (i.e. SDT and AGT) to further our under-
standing of student motivation during the transitional period from the middle school
to high school years. Given that learning involves a goal-directed, circular process of
self-regulation, it is crucial to understand the mutual longitudinal relationship between
the underlying regulatory motives (SDT constructs) and purposes of achievement
behaviors (AGT constructs).
Most prior studies took a certain theoretical position about the role of SDT con-
structs in relation to achievement goals and tested them as either precursors or conse-
quences of achievement goals. A limited number of studies examined the possibility
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 987

of the SDT constructs playing both roles in a single study (Ciani et al., 2011). Most
available research on the relationship between self-determined motivation and
achievement goals has investigated the SDT constructs as antecedents, indicating that
degrees of self-determined motivation influence endorsement of a particular type of
achievement goal (Ciani et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2010). In addition, various motivational
constructs such as intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, interest, and task values that are com-
parable to SDT constructs have been examined as either antecedents (Harackiewicz,
Durik, Barron, Linnenbrink-Garcia, & Tauer, 2008; Liem, Lau, & Nie, 2008) or consequen-
ces of achievement goals (e.g. Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, Carter, & Elliot, 2000;
Harackiewicz & Elliot, 1993; Harackiewicz & Hulleman, 2010; Hulleman, Durik,
Schweigert, & Harackiewicz, 2008; Moreno, Gonzalez-Cutre, Sicilia, & Spray, 2010).
These previous studies have shown that goals and motivation tend to influence each
other. An individual’s decision on which goals to pursue can be affected by various
motivational factors and one’s motivation can also change as a result of pursuing a
goal. The cyclical process of learning which has been well-documented in the self-
regulation literature can be viewed as a theoretical basis for the hypothesized relation-
ship between goals and motivation (Schunk, 2011; Schunk et al., 2014). According to
the self-regulation theory, goals are affected by forethought phase motivation (e.g.
values, self-efficacy) and in turn, goal pursuit and progress either increase or decrease
subsequent motivation (Zimmerman, 2001).
While situating SDT within the context of AGT, it seems reasonable to hypothesize
that SDT constructs would play roles as both precursors and outcomes of achievement
goal pursuit. It is meaningful to further understand the cyclical nature of the relation-
ship between achievement goals and academic motivation during this developmen-
tally critical transition. The present study focused on how students’ self-determined
motives developed over time throughout the transition from middle school to high
school through their dual roles as both antecedents and outcomes of achievement
goals. For instance, the autonomous or controlled motives of achievement behaviors
that students possessed during middle school may influence the adoption of certain
types of achievement goals while entering high school, which in turn may either
strengthen or weaken the subsequent motives of achievement behaviors in the follow-
ing years.

Overview of the present study: hypothesized conceptual model

In the present study, we looked at antecedents and consequences of achievement
goal pursuit of students in the transition from middle school to high school from a
self-determination perspective. Specifically, we investigated how certain types of
achievement goals adopted in the first year of high school (10th grade) are affected
by varying degrees of self-determined motives from the 9th grade (middle school).
Further, we examined whether the achievement goal pursuit would affect the subse-
quent self-determined motivation in the following year of high school (11th grade).
The main reason we examined achievement goal orientation in the 10th grade, which
is the first year of high school in the Korean education system, was because it is a crit-
ical period in which students change or adopt a certain type of achievement goal as
988 Y. CHO AND M. KIM

Figure 1. Hypothesized longitudinal relationship between self-determined motivation and achieve-

ment goals (Note. MA: mastery approach; MV: mastery avoidance; PA: performance approach; PV:
performance avoidance; the auto-regressed paths between 9th and 11th grade were omitted
for clarity).

they start out a new school. Considering the increasing competitiveness in entering
college in Korean society, students might adopt more performance-oriented achieve-
ment goals in high school compared to in middle school (Oh, Choo, & Lim, 2011). It
would be meaningful to understand what affects the adoption of achievement goal of
students in the first year of high school and how differential learning experiences
entailed by each type of achievement goal would intensify or weaken degrees of self-
determined motives.
As shown in Figure 1, we anticipated that individuals with autonomous or con-
trolled motives would likely adopt different types of achievement goals, that is, engag-
ing in the same task due to different reasons and purposes. In addition, we
hypothesized that achievement goal pursuit would play a significant role in reinforcing
differential values of learning that are prompted by corresponding types of achieve-
ment goals. Here are more details of and rationale for our hypotheses. First, we
expected that autonomous motives (intrinsic and identified regulation) in the 9th
grade would be positively associated with mastery-approach and mastery-avoidance
goals in the 10th grade. A mastery goal that involves a strong focus on learning for its
own sake does not stem from external coercion or pressure (Ciani et al., 2011; Kim
et al., 2010). Consequently, we expected that a mastery goal would be undergirded by
a high level of autonomy or self-determination. Prior studies that incorporated
achievement goals into the SDT perspective also showed that both intrinsic and iden-
tified regulation, which is viewed as autonomous motives, were positively associated
with mastery goals (e.g. Hein & Hagger, 2007; Ntoumanis, 2001; Standage & Treasure,
2002). However, intrinsic and identified regulation are expected to differentially relate
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 989

to performance-approach goals. Intrinsic motivation would be negatively associated

with performance-approach goals, while identified regulation would be positively asso-
ciated with performance-approach goals. Students with intrinsic motivation, who
engage in a specific task for the experience of pleasure in the task, would not neces-
sarily focus on demonstrating superior performance, while those with identified regu-
lation (i.e. engaging in a task because of its utility value) might find outperforming
others valuable.
Second, controlling motives (introjected and external regulation) in the 9th grade
were hypothesized to be positively associated with performance-approach and per-
formance-avoidance goals in the 10th grade, but negatively associated with mastery-
approach goals in the 10th grade. Conceptually, students adopting performance-
approach or performance-avoidance goals are likely to be motivated by extrinsic
rewards such as social recognition or gaining the approval of others. Therefore, per-
formance-oriented goal types would be endorsed when individuals are regulated by
controlling motives involving external factors.
Third, self-determined motivation in the 11th grade was expected to be an out-
come of achievement goal pursuit in the 10th grade (Harackiewicz et al., 2008;
Harackiewicz & Elliot, 1993; Harackiewicz & Hulleman, 2010). Intrinsic regulation (11th
grade) would be strengthened by the pursuit of mastery-approach goals (10th grade),
while identified regulation (11th grade) would be strengthened by achievement goal
types with mastery or approach components (i.e. MA, MV, PA in the10th grade).
Introjected and external regulation (11th grade) would be strengthened by achieve-
ment goal types with performance components (i.e. PA, PV in the10th grade).
Specifically, mastery-approach goals (10th grade) would positively influence intrinsic
and identified regulation (autonomous forms of motivation in the 11th grade) and
negatively influence introjected and external regulation (controlled forms of motiv-
ation in the 11th grade). Mastery-avoidance and performance-approach goals (10th
grade) would negatively predict intrinsic regulation but positively predict identified
regulation (11th grade). In addition, performance-approach and performance-avoid-
ance goals (10th grade) would positively influence introjected and external regulation
(11th grade).
Testing the hypothesized model will enable us to unpack the complex and dynamic
nature of student motivation during the transition from middle school to high school.
It is hoped that this study will provide practical implications for educators who wish
to create a learning environment conducive to the promotion of adaptive motivation
and achievement goals for middle and high school students.

Methods
Participants
The dataset used in this study is part of a large, ongoing 15-year Korean Educational
Longitudinal Study (KELS) conducted by the Korean Educational Development Institute
(see Ryu et al., 2005 for more information). The purpose of the KELS was to annually
trace and investigate the learning and educational activities experienced by partici-
pants within their family, school, and social life in terms of their cognitive and non-
990 Y. CHO AND M. KIM

cognitive development. A stratified cluster random sampling procedure was conducted

to guarantee that the data were representative of Korean middle school students. The
data analyzed in the present study were collected for three consecutive years (from
9th grade until 11th grade: T1, T2, and T3 for abbreviation). Of the 4005 recruited 9th
students, who advanced to general high schools and responded to the questionnaire
at T1, 120 students did not complete the questionnaire at T2 and an additional 542
students dropped from the study at T3. Thus, the final sample used in the data ana-
lysis were 3343 students (1756 males and 1587 females), representing 83.5% of the
students who agreed to participate in this study at T1.

Measures
In order to investigate the hypothesized longitudinal relationship between self-deter-
mined motivation and achievement goal orientation of participants, achievement goal
measure was gathered on participants in the 10th grade and self-determination meas-
ures in the 9th and 11th grades. The items used in the study were reviewed thor-
oughly to ensure that they did not overlap across measures.

Self-determined motivation
Self-determined motivation was measured in the 9th and 11th grades using an
instrument that was adapted from Ryan and Deci (2000) and validated by Park,
Kim, and Kang (2007). This scale consists of four different degrees of self-deter-
mined motivation such as external, introjected, identified, and intrinsic regulations.
Each motivational regulation was comprised of four items with the stem, ‘I take
part in school learning because … ’. Examples of items are ‘because learning is fun’
(for intrinsic regulation), ‘because it is important for me to do well in school’ (for
identified regulation), ‘because I’ll feel bad about myself if I don’t’ (for introjected
regulation), and ‘because I’ll get into trouble if I don’t’ (for external regulation). All
items used a four-point Likert-type scale with 1 ¼ not all true and 4 ¼ very true.
Internal reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) calculated with the study sample were as fol-
lows based on their time points: external regulation (0.84 for 9th grade, 0.81 for
11th grade), introjected regulation (0.76 for 9th grade, 0.77 for 11th grade), inte-
grated regulation (0.83 for 9th grade, 0.78 for 11th grade), and intrinsic regulation
(0.81 for 9th grade, 0.75 for 11th grade).
To test whether the same self-determination constructs were measured across time
(in the 9th and 11th grades), five nested levels of measurement invariance were exam-
ined: configural, metric, scalar, residual, and factor variance invariance. Considering
that a chi-square statistic is known to be unduly influenced by sample size, three add-
itional fit statistics such as TLI, CFI, and RMSEA were utilized for testing measurement
invariance. The result indicated that, except for the chi-square difference statistics, the
differences identified by the indexes of TLI, CFI, and RMSEA were negligible (0.91 
TLI  0.92; 0.92  CFI  0.93; 0.046  RMSEA  0.049), supporting the invariance of
self-determination measurement over time.
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 991

Achievement goals
The 2  2 achievement goal scale with 12 items was adapted from Elliot and
McGregor (2001) and validated by Park et al. (2007). The scale includes the follow-
ing four subscales: (1) Mastery-approach (MA) goal that assesses students’ focus on
learning (e.g. ‘It is important for me to learn as much as possible’); (2) Mastery-
avoidance (MV) goal that refers to their concerns about not being able to learn or
understand as much as they want to (e.g. ‘I am concerned that I am not able to
understand to the extent which I want to reach’); (3) Performance-approach (PA)
goal that measures the degree to which students are likely to demonstrate high
academic competence relative to other students in the class (e.g. ‘I like to show
that I’m smarter than the other students in my class’); and (4) Performance-avoid-
ance (PV) goal that assesses students’ concern about looking inferior to other stu-
dents in the class (e.g. ‘It is important for me to avoid doing poorly compared to
other students’). This study used student responses to this instrument measured in
the 10th grade on a four-point Likert type scale with 1 ¼ not all true and 4 ¼ all
true. Internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) for this sample is 0.75 for mastery-
approach, 0.87 for mastery-avoidance, 0.79 for performance-approach and 0.80 for
the performance-avoidance goal.

Data analysis
Initially, confirmatory factor analyses using the maximum likelihood method were per-
formed to examine the factor structure of all scales used in this study. In order to
check the statistical assumption of multivariate normality, we examined the skewness
and kurtosis of each observed measure, which was found to be in acceptable ranges
(0.00|skewness|0.731; 0.001|kurtosis|1.16). SPSS 23 was utilized to perform
descriptive analyses and check the normality assumption.
Structural equation modeling (SEM) was performed to examine the longitudinal
hypothesized relationships among the four different regulations of self-determination
and four different types of achievement goals for three consecutive years. All SEM
analyses in the present study were carried out using Mplus Version 6.0 (Muthen &
Muth en, 2010). The goodness of fit of the hypothesized model was evaluated using
the recommended multiple indices of model fit such as: CFI (Comparative Fit Index) >
0.90, RMSEA (Root Mean Square error of approximation) < 0.08, SRMR (Standardized
Root Mean Square Residual) < 0.08, and TLI (Tucker Lewis Index) > 0.90 (Hu &
Bentler, 1999).

Results
Preliminary analyses
We conducted an attrition analysis to compare the final sample (n ¼ 3343) that
remained in the analysis with the dropout group who did not complete the question-
naire either at T2 (n ¼ 120) and T3 (n ¼ 540) based on the major variables in the
study: self-determination at T1 and goal-orientation at T2. Independent-sample t-tests
revealed that there was no significant difference in self-determination at T1 between
992 Y. CHO AND M. KIM

the final sample and the dropout group. However, for goal orientation measured at
T2, the final sample showed higher scores on MA, MV, PA and PV than the dropout
group who did not complete the questionnaire at T3 (MA, t ¼ 3.12, p < .01; MV, t ¼
2.44, p < .05; PA, t ¼ 3.02, p < .01; PV, t ¼ 2.16, p < .05). The result that stu-
dents in the dropout group showed lower scores across all goal types than those in
the final sample indicates that the attrition occurred in all types of achievement goals,
not in a certain type of goal. Given that the primary focus of the study is on the quali-
tative aspects of achievement goals rather than in their quantitative aspects, the differ-
ence in the quantitative level of achievement goals between the final sample and the
dropout group can be viewed negligible in this study. However, it remains worthy of
investigation to examine whether qualitative aspects of motivation tend to take differ-
ent paths depending on the quantitative level of motivation, although this is not the
focus of the current study.
The descriptive statistics, correlation coefficients among key variables, and confirma-
tory factor analysis results are presented in Tables 1 and 2.

Structural equation modeling analysis

To test our hypothesized model positing the relationship between self-determined
motivation and achievement goals, we performed the analyses in two steps: a test of
the measurement model and a test of the full structural model. The measurement
model consisted of four indicators for each subscale of self-determined motivation
(intrinsic, identified, introjected, and extrinsic regulation) and three indicators for each
type of achievement goals (MA, MV, PA, PV) across different time points of data collec-
tion (9th grade ¼ T1, 10th grade ¼ T2, 11th grade ¼ T3). We allowed the between-
time error terms of each self-determination indicator to correlate with itself from T1 to
T3. The overall measurement model fit the data well (v2 (1, 820) ¼ 4934.37, p < .01;
RMSEA ¼ 0.039; 90% CI[0.038, 0.040], SRMR ¼ 0.036, CFI ¼ 0.933) with each indicator
loading significantly and substantially (greater than 0.58) on the corresponding factor,
as shown in Table 1.
Next, we tested the overall fit of the structural model hypothesized in this study.
The errors of the within-wave self-determination variables were permitted to correlate
(as depicted by the curved lines in Figure 1) based on the interconnected relationships
among the different degrees of self-determined motivation. The auto-regressed paths
between T1 and T3 self-determination represented a natural relationship between the
same variables measured in the two different time points. The overall structural model
fit the data well, v2 (1, 843) ¼ 6335.30, p < .01; RMSEA ¼ 0.044; 90% CI[0.043, 0.045],
SRMR ¼ 0.07, CFI ¼ 0.91. Table 3 provides the unstandardized and standardized par-
ameter estimates and standard errors for each path.

The influence of 9th grade (T1) self-determined motivation on 10th grade (T2)
achievement goals
As shown in Table 3 and Figure 2, the 10th grade mastery-approach goals (T2) were
significantly predicted by intrinsic (b ¼ 0.13, p < .001), identified (b ¼ 0.16, p < .001),
introjected (b ¼ 0.22, p < .001), and external (b ¼ 0.18, p < .001) regulations in the
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 993

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and factor loadings of observed indicators.

Observed
Latent factor indicators Mean(SD) Factor loadings
Self-determination 9th 11th 9th 11th
External 1 2.03 (0.76) 1.95 (0.74) 0.72 0.74
2 1.83 (0.70) 1.75 (0.64) 0.67 0.62
3 2.19 (0.80) 2.09 (0.75) 0.85 0.80
4 1.97 (0.73) 1.88 (0.66) 0.80 0.70
Introjected 1 2.60 (0.78) 2.56 (0.75) 0.69 0.68
2 2.49 (0.81) 2.44 (0.80) 0.64 0.67
3 2.42 (0.79) 2.42 (0.79) 0.74 0.76
4 2.65 (0.83) 2.52 (0.80) 0.59 0.58
Identified 1 2.89 (0.71) 2.85 (0.67) 0.82 0.69
2 2.84 (0.69) 2.79 (0.63) 0.78 0.77
3 2.73 (0.73) 2.64 (0.72) 0.69 0.62
4 2.91 (0.66) 2.78 (0.67) 0.68 0.68
Intrinsic 1 2.46 (0.73) 2.46 (0.70) 0.84 0.67
2 2.20 (0.72) 2.28 (0.66) 0.71 0.66
3 2.52 (0.78) 2.46 (0.71) 0.70 0.67
4 2.49 (0.76) 2.37 (0.71) 0.65 0.61
Achievement goal orientation (10th)
Mastery-approach 1 3.05 (0.61) 0.61
2 3.07 (0.66) 0.77
3 3.23 (0.64) 0.74
Mastery-avoidance 1 2.61 (0.73) 0.77
2 2.62 (0.75) 0.89
3 2.51 (0.75) 0.84
Performance-approach 1 3.35 (0.65) 0.64
2 2.92 (0.76) 0.83
3 2.72 (0.73) 0.79
Performance-avoidance 1 2.43 (0.77) 0.78
2 2.43 (0.74) 0.83
3 2.71 (0.75) 0.66
Note: 9th ¼ 9th grade; 10th ¼ 10th grade; 11th ¼ 11th grade.

9th grade (T1). Mastery-avoidance goals (T2) were significantly predicted by the intrin-
sic (b ¼ 0.10, p < .01) and identified (b ¼ 0.08, p < .05) regulations (T1). Performance-
approach goals (T2) were significantly predicted by external (b ¼ 0.14, p < .001) and
introjected (b ¼ 0.43, p < .001) regulations; however, identified and intrinsic regula-
tions did not predict performance-approach goals significantly (b ¼ 0.04, n.s.; b ¼
0.06, n.s. respectively). Introjected regulation significantly influenced performance-
avoidance goal (b ¼ 0.37, p < .001), but external regulation did not (b ¼0.01, n.s.).

The influence of 10th grade (T2) achievement goals on 11th grade (T3) self-
determined motivation
Mastery-approach goals adopted by the 10th grade students (T2) had a significant
positive effect on intrinsic (b ¼ 0.25, p < .001), identified (b ¼ 0.22, p < .001) and
introjected (b ¼ 0.09, p < .001) regulation in the 11th grade, but had a significant
negative effect on external regulation (b ¼ 0.08, p < .001). Mastery-avoidance goals
in the 10th grade (T2) significantly predicted identified regulation (b ¼ 0.04, p < .05)
in the 11th grade (T3), but not intrinsic regulation (b ¼ 0.01, n.s.). Performance-
approach goals showed positive effects on identified (b ¼ 0.04 p < .05) and intro-
jected regulation (b ¼ 0.17, p < .001), but their effects were not significant on intrinsic
 994
Y. CHO AND M. KIM

Table 2. Intercorrelation matrix among observed variables.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. External regulation, 9th __
2. Introjected regulation, 9th 0.24 __
3. Identified regulation, 9th 20.14 0.28 __
4. Intrinsic regulation, 9th 0.09 0.30 0.60 __
5. Mastery approach, 10th 0.13 0.16 0.29 0.27 __
6. Mastery avoidance, 10th 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.39 __
7. Performance approach, 10th 0.03 0.28 0.16 0.18 0.45 0.38 __
8. Performance avoidance, 10th 0.09 0.27 0.04 0.07 0.20 0.42 0.46 __
9. External regulation, 11th 0.38 0.11 0.07 0.06 0.11 0.05 0.00 0.11 __
10. Introjected regulation, 11th 0.07 0.41 0.15 0.21 0.22 0.20 0.35 0.33 0.29 __
11. Identified regulation, 11th 0.10 0.15 0.39 0.35 0.29 0.16 0.19 0.09 0.04 0.36 __
12. Intrinsic regulation, 11th -0.13 0.09 0.31 0.41 0.28 0.13 0.17 0.06 -0.03 0.35 0.69
Note. N ¼ 3343.
p < .05.
p < .01.
p < .001.
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 995

Table 3. Estimates of relationships between self-determination and achievement goal variables.

Unstandardized Standardized
parameter parameter Standard
Path estimates (b) estimates(b) errors
9th grade(T1) Intrinsic ! MA 0.08 0.13 0.02
# Identified ! MA 0.10 0.16 0.02
10th grade (T2) Introjected ! MA 0.15 0.22 0.02
External ! MA 0.12 0.18 0.02
Intrinsic ! MV 0.09 0.10 0.03
Identified ! MV 0.08 0.08 0.03
Intrinsic ! PA 0.04 0.06 0.02
Identified ! PA 0.03 0.04 0.02
Introjected ! PA 0.33 0.43 0.02
External ! PA 0.10 0.14 0.02
Introjected ! PV 0.40 0.37 0.03
External ! PV 0.01 0.01 0.02
10th grade (T2) MA ! Intrinsic 0.30 0.25 0.03
# MV ! Intrinsic 0.01 0.01 0.02
11th grade (T3) PA ! Intrinsic 0.02 0.02 0.02
MA ! Identified 0.27 0.22 0.03
MV ! Identified 0.03 0.04 0.02
PA ! Identified 0.05 0.04 0.02
MA ! Introjected 0.12 0.09 0.03
PA ! Introjected 0.21 0.17 0.03
PV ! Introjected 0.16 0.18 0.02
MA ! External 0.11 0.08 0.03
PA ! External 0.02 0.02 0.03
PV ! External 0.10 0.12 0.02
9th grade (T1) Intrinsic ! Intrinsic 0.27 0.36 0.02
# Identified ! Identified 0.28 0.35 0.02
11th grade (T3) Introjected! Introjected 0.34 0.36 0.02
(Auto-regressive) External ! External 0.39 0.44 0.02
Covariances External $ Introjected 0.08 0.28 0.01
in 9th(11th) grade (0.08) (0.44) (0.01)
External $ Identified 0.06 0.19 0.01
(0.00) (0.03) (0.00)
External $ Intrinsic 0.04 0.13 0.01
(0.01) (0.07) (0.00)
Introjected $ Identified 0.10 0.33 0.01
(0.07) (0.44) (0.01)
Introjected $ Intrinsic 0.12 0.35 0.01
(0.08) (0.47) (0.01)
Identified $ Intrinsic 0.26 0.74 0.01
(0.14) (0.89) (0.01)
Note. MA: mastery approach; MV: mastery avoidance; PA: performance approach; PV: performance avoidance;
p < .05.
p < .01.
p < .001.

and external regulation (b ¼ 0.02, n.s.; b ¼ 0.02, n.s., respectively). Performance-avoid-

ance goals (T2) significantly predicted introjected (b ¼ 0.18, p < .001) and external
(b ¼ 0.12, p < .001) regulations (T3).

The influence of 9th grade (T1) self-determined motivation on 11th grade (T3)
self-determined motivation
All autoregressive paths from T1 to T3 self-determined motivation were statistically
significant and positive (bintrinsic ¼ 0.36, p < .001; bidentified ¼ 0.35, p < .001; bintrojected
996 Y. CHO AND M. KIM

Figure 2. Standardized parameter estimates of longitudinal relationships between self-determined

motivation and achievement goals (Note. MA: mastery approach; MV: mastery avoidance; PA: per-
formance approach; PV: performance avoidance; p < .05; p < .01; p < .001; the auto-
regressed paths between 9th and 11th grade were omitted for clarity, but presented in Table 3).

¼ 0.36, p < .001; bexternal ¼ 0.44, p < .001), indicating that self-determined motivation
at T1 explains significantly self-determined motivation T3 (See Figure 2).

Discussion
The purpose of the study was to investigate the longitudinal reciprocal relationship
between achievement goals and self-determined motivation of students transitioning
from middle school to high school. We investigated in what ways varying degrees of self-
determined motivation from middle school influence the adoptions of certain types of
achievement goals in the first year of high school, which in turn play a role in strengthen-
ing or weakening the degrees of self-determined motivation in their subsequent
grades. As expected, the overall results showed that varying degrees of self-determined
motivation in the 9th grade had a significant impact on the adoption of achievement
goals in the10th grade and the pursuit of achievement goal in the 10th grade influenced
the degree of self-determined motivation in the 11th grade.

Influence of 9th grade self-determined motivation on 10th grade

achievement goals
Autonomous motives in the 9th grade (i.e. intrinsic and identified regulation) influenced
the adoption of mastery-oriented goals (i.e. mastery-approach and mastery-avoidance
goals). On the other hand, the two controlled motives in the 9th grade (i.e. introjected
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 997

and external regulation) showed differential patterns of relationships with achievement

goals in the 10th grade. External regulation (9th grade) showed a negative relationship
with mastery-approach and performance-approach goals (10th grade). Regarding the
negative effects of external regulation, it can be speculated that the desire to gain an
external reward (i.e. external regulation) may diminish the desire to learn and/or outper-
form, thereby overall lessening their desire to ‘approach’ academic success. By contrast,
introjected regulation had a positive relationship with mastery-approach and perform-
ance-approach goals as well as with performance-avoidance goals. Introjected regulation
is multifaceted in nature because it belongs to controlled, but partially internalized
motives, while external regulation is purely extrinsic as non-internalized motives. Further
empirical attention needs to be paid to elucidating the role of introjected regulation in
relation to its multifaceted nature.
All other achievement goals in the 10th grade, except for mastery-approach goals,
showed the expected relationships with self-determined motivation in the 9th grade.
It is noteworthy that mastery-approach goals were influenced by both controlled and
autonomous motives, although they were initially expected to be impacted only by
autonomous motives. The result means that students’ adoption of mastery-approach
goals is based on various motives or regulatory styles. This result necessitates judicious
speculation as to why controlled motives (i.e. introjected regulation and external regu-
lation) are associated with the adoption of mastery-approach goals. Mastery-approach
goals are adopted not only due to students’ intrinsic or identified motives of ‘wanting
to’ learn and grow, but also their introjected values of ‘having to’ learn and grow. The
finding that not only autonomous motives but also controlled motives influence the
adoption of mastery-approach goals is partly inconsistent with previous research (Ciani
et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2010; Senko & Tropiano, 2016).
The two points discussed earlier warrant further integrated discussion: (1) intro-
jected regulation with the multifaceted nature (controlled but partially internalized)
and (2) mastery-approach goals influenced by the unexpectedly wide range of
motives. Intriguingly, the predictive power of introjected regulation (9th grade) in the
adoption of mastery-approach goals (10th grade) was larger than that of intrinsic and
identified regulation (9th grade). This result indicates that introjected regulation from
middle school serves as an intense motive for the endorsement of mastery-approach
goals for students entering high school. Regarding the positive relation between intro-
jected regulation and mastery-approach goals, it can be speculated that some Korean
students are likely to adopt mastery-focused goals because they tend to view learning
as a duty imposed on students and thus feel obligated to learn in school. Some stu-
dents entering a high school tend to learn and develop competence by adopting a
mastery-approach goal because they believe that it is socially expected of them to be
a good student and act in accordance with their belief that a good student ought to
put forth the diligent efforts necessary to learn well in school. Otherwise, they would
feel guilty and regretful for not fulfilling socially desirable duties. Such an imposed
expectation becomes more salient when pressures for college entrance exams increase
from the 9th grade (finishing middle school) to the 10th grade (entering high school).
Consequently, students may feel obligated to reestablish their academic goals in order
to fulfill their socially-imposed duty during the transition period.
998 Y. CHO AND M. KIM

Our study also revealed that introjected regulation is associated with performance-
focused goals (PA and PV), which is consistent with a previous study (Assor,
Vansteenkiste, & Kaplan, 2009). The result makes sense in that introjected regulation
and performance-oriented goals are both concerned with self-worth (Assor et al.,
2009). Prior studies made some efforts to clarify the nature and impact of introjected
regulation. For instance, Assor et al. (2009) differentiated introjected-approach and
introjected-avoidance to clarify the ambiguous nature of introjected regulation, claim-
ing that the former is adaptive while the latter is maladaptive. The nuanced nature of
responsibilities and duties imposed on students (i.e. introjected regulation) may vary
depending on what messages are signaled from their surrounding environments
(e.g. developing vs. demonstrating competence), which will prompt students to adopt
different types of achievement goals. Perceived learning contexts may play an import-
ant role in determining the function of introjected regulation. Therefore, a future
empirical investigation needs to consider various contexts of learning in order to
further elucidate the complicated role of introjected regulation, particularly its relation-
ship with mastery goals.

Influence of 10th grade achievement goals on 11th grade subsequent degrees

of self-determined motivation
Pursuit of achievement goals in the first year of high school was found to serve as
determinants of subsequent self-determined motivation in the following year of high
school. One of the notable findings in the present study is that involvement in the
pursuit of mastery-approach goals in the 10th grade intensifies the intrinsic and identi-
fied values of learning while it weakens the introjected and external values. The pur-
suit of mastery-approach goals in the 10th grade was the only significant predictor of
subsequent intrinsic motivation in the 11th grade and the strongest predictor of sub-
sequent identified regulation in the 11th grade, which is consistent with previous
studies (Harackiewicz et al., 1997; Harackiewicz et al., 2000; Harackiewicz et al., 2008).
The results imply that students learn how to regulate their subsequent regulatory
behaviors in accordance with the core values inherent in the adopted achievement
goals. Mastery-oriented students value the process of learning (Elliot, 2005), therefore,
they tend to put more effort in developing competence, employing adaptive learning
strategies, and engaging deeply in learning (Liem et al., 2008). During such a mastery-
oriented learning process, students are likely to experience enjoyment in performing
academic activities (i.e. intrinsic regulation) and realize values of learning more (i.e.
identified regulation) (Biddle et al., 1999). In other words, students pursuing mastery-
approach goals experience and internalize the core values (i.e. wanting to learn)
embedded in the goals into their own values, which in turn reinforces autonomous
motives for the subsequent tasks.
Performance-approach goals in the 10th grade had the strongest effect on intro-
jected regulation in the 11th grade. Pursuing performance-approach goals provides stu-
dents with little opportunity to see the value of learning because performance-oriented
students, whose primary focus is on showing off superior competence in comparison
to others, tend to expend a minimum amount of effort and engage in learning on a
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 999

superficial level (Liem et al., 2008). Thus, performance-oriented students, concerned

about achieving better outcomes relative to others, might be less likely to experience
the enjoyment or pleasure of learning and thus be less likely to realize the importance
of learning (Heyman & Dweck, 1992). Rather, they are more likely to experience pres-
sure to obtain social recognition and favorable evaluations regarding their superior
competence. Such pressure to live up to others’ expectations will result in increased
introjected regulations for subsequent tasks. Similar patterns for the relation between
performance-avoidance goals (10th grade) and introjected regulation (11th grade) were
observed. Students pursuing performance-avoidance goals in the 10th grade tend to
focus on hiding their inferior competence not to disappoint others (Elliot, 2005). Such
pressure to protect their self-worth may cause students to think that they must per-
form expected tasks.

Role of mastery-approach goals in the internalization process

The present investigation revealed a cyclical nature of the relationships between self-
determined motivation and achievement goals during the transition from middle
school to high school. Mastery-approach goals in the first year of high school (10th
grade) played a central role in the longitudinal relationship between 9th grade and
11th grade self-determined motivation. To further understand the role of mastery-
approach goals in this transition period, we conducted supplementary analyses to test
whether mastery-approach goals serve as mediators. Results showed that mastery-
approach goals had statistically significant, partial mediating effects for all paths from
the 9th to 11th grade self-determined motivation. It is particularly interesting that stu-
dents with introjected regulation in the 9th grade can have intrinsic motivation in the
11th grade only through the mediation of mastery-approach goal pursuit in the
10th grade.
Intriguingly, the pattern (indicated by direction and strength) of the longitudinal
relationship between mastery-approach goals and self-determined motivation became
clearer when self-determined motivation served as an outcome of achievement goals
than when it served as an antecedent. This was evidenced by the result that the asso-
ciation between mastery-approach goals in the 10th grade and intrinsic motivation in
the 11th grade was twice as strong as the association between prior intrinsic motiv-
ation in the 9th grade and mastery-approach goals in the 10th grade, while the associ-
ation between mastery-approach goal in the 10th grade and subsequent introjected
regulation in the 11th grade was much weaker than the association between prior
introjected regulation in the 9th grade and mastery-approach goal in the 10th grade.
Thus, the results indicate that the adoption of mastery-approach goals may stem from
varying degrees of motivation ranging from intrinsic to identified to introjected regula-
tion but that the course of mastery goal pursuit results in internalization of motivation
shifting from controlled motivation (i.e. external and introjected regulation) to autono-
mous motivation (i.e. identified and intrinsic regulation).
Considerable amount of research on SDT has found the critical role of satisfying
basic psychological needs (i.e. the need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness)
in the process of internalization of motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000;
1000 Y. CHO AND M. KIM

Ryan & Deci, 2002). It is noteworthy that the present study adds to the literature
empirical evidence that strivings for mastery-approach goals also play an important
role in the process of internalization of extrinsic motivation.

Limitations and suggestions for future study

Despite the significant findings of the study, it nevertheless contains some limitations.
First, the present investigation is limited in explaining the process by which mastery-
approach goals contribute to internalization. We made some plausible speculations
about the potential mechanism, but empirical investigations are needed. Previous
research has shown that pursuit of intrinsic goals that focus on personal growth, emo-
tional intimacy, and societal contributions is related to the satisfaction of psychological
needs (Sheldon, Arndt, & Houser-Marko, 2003). There are shared characteristics
between mastery-approach goals and intrinsic goals in that both goals are concerned
with personal growth. In this regard, mastery-approach goals may promote the satis-
faction of psychological needs that are essential for the internalization of external val-
ues. Future research needs to explicate whether and in what ways psychological
needs satisfaction might mediate the effect of achievement goals on subsequent self-
determined motivation.
Second, the present study did not measure goal attainment as a result of the
achievement goal pursuit. Whether an individual was successful in achieving the
achievement goals or not would make a significant difference in the nature of experi-
ence during the pursuit of achievement goals. We discussed that the pursuit of mas-
tery-approach goals lessened the strength of its relationship with subsequent
controlled forms of motivation, but it is notable that the relationship was still statistic-
ally significant while remaining very weak. Students endorsing mastery-approach goals
have a higher chance of attaining goals compared to performance-approach goals,
given that mastery-approach goals do not require a ‘You win, I lose’ situation.
However, mastery-approach goals do not necessarily guarantee successful goal attain-
ment. Students who fail to attain mastery-approach goals may not have the opportun-
ity to fully experience the enjoyment and value of improving abilities and skills. As a
result, they may not be able to develop autonomous motives of ‘wanting to’ learn
and instead develop controlled motives of ‘having to’ learn while not resorting to
external rewards as reasons for studying. It is imperative that future research either
controls for goal attainments or examines whether goal attainments or differential
experiences caused by the success or failure in goal attainment would moderate the
influence of achievement goals on the subsequent self-determined motivation.
Third, the present study did not consider contextual factors to further understand
the role of mastery-approach goals in the promotion of internalization (i.e. a shift from
controlled motivation to autonomous motivation). SDT postulates that contexts condu-
cive to the satisfaction of psychological needs tend to promote autonomous motiv-
ation, while contexts threatening psychological needs tend to promote controlled
motivation, highlighting the role of social contexts in internalization. In the area of
achievement goal research, goal-related contexts are referred to as ‘goal structures’
(Meece et al., 2006). It would be necessary to consider personal goals and contextual
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 1001

goal structures simultaneously to fully capture how the internalization processes occur.
Classroom goal structures that are congruent with personal achievement goals might
promote psychological needs satisfaction, but incongruence between classroom goal
structures and personal achievement goals might hinder the satisfaction of psycho-
logical needs. Classroom goal structure may moderate the role of mastery-approach
goals in promoting self-determined motivation, resulting in the hypothesis that mas-
tery-approach goals would be linked to autonomous motivation only in mastery goal
structure, but not in performance goal structure. Future research is warranted to
examine environmental conditions determining the effectiveness of mastery-approach
goals in the development of self-determined motivation.
The last limitation relates to the use of existing longitudinal panel data where both
AGT and SDT constructs were not measured across all three-time points. A cross-
lagged structural equation model analysis can be performed in future studies by meas-
uring all key variables within each time point, which would extend our investigation
of the longitudinal causal relationships across the transitional years. In addition, the
panel data used in this study include item-level data with a four-point response for-
mat, which may not be optimal for maximum likelihood estimation (Finney, &
DiStefano, 2013).

Conclusion
The empirical investigation of the longitudinal reciprocal relationship between self-
determined motivation and achievement goals enhanced our understanding of the
dynamic natures of student motivation during the transition period from middle to
high school. Students tend to have different forms and degrees of self-determined
motivation before and after they become involved in the pursuit of achievement
goals. While the pursuit of mastery-approach goals might begin with various forms
and degrees of self-determined motivation, involvement in the pursuit of mastery-
approach goals strengthened autonomous regulation while weakening controlled
regulation. The current study consolidates the theoretical and practical utility of
mastery-approach goals in strengthening intrinsic motivation and internalizing external
values.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by research fund from Chosun University, 2015.

ORCID
YoonJung Cho http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4702-5315
Minseong Kim http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7610-957X
1002 Y. CHO AND M. KIM

References
Ames, C. (1992). Achievement goals and classroom motivational climate. In J. Meece & D.
Schunk (Eds.), Students’ perceptions in the classroom (pp. 327–348). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Assor, A., Vansteenkiste, M., & Kaplan, A. (2009). Identified versus introjected approach and intro-
jected avoidance motivations in school and in sports: The limited benefits of self-worth striv-
ings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(2), 482–497. doi:10.1037/a0014236
Biddle, S., Soos, I., & Chatzisarantis, N. (1999). Predicting physical activity intentions using goal
perspectives and self-determination theory approaches. European Psychologist, 4(2), 83. doi:
10.1027//1016-9040.4.4.83
Ciani, K. D., Sheldon, K. M., Hilpert, J. C., & Easter, M. A. (2011). Antecedents and trajectories of
achievement goals: A self-determination theory perspective. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 81(2), 223–243. doi:10.1348/000709910X517399
De Brabander, C. J., & Martens, R. L. (2014). Towards a unified theory of task-specific motivation.
Educational Research Review, 11, 27–44. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2013.11.001
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, 227–268. doi:10.1207/
S15327965PLI1104_01
Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. J. Elliot & C. S.
Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 52–72). New York: Guilford Press.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 x 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 80, 501–519. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.80.3.501
Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). The need for competence. In E. L. Deci &
R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 361–387). Rochester, NY:
University of Rochester Press.
Finney, S. J., & DiStefano, C. (2013). Nonnormal and categorical data in structural equation mod-
eling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Quantitative methods in education and the behav-
ioral sciences: Issues, research, and teaching. Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp.
439–492). Charlotte, NC, US: IAP Information Age Publishing.
Gutman, L. M. (2006). How student and parent goal orientations and classroom goal structures
influence the math achievement of African Americans during the high school transition.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(1), 44–63. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.01.004
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Carter, S. M., Lehto, A. T., & Elliot, A. J. (1997). Predictors and
consequences of achievement goals in the college classroom: Maintaining interest and mak-
ing the grade. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1284. doi:10.1037//0022-
3514.73.6.1284
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Carter, S. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Short-term and
long-term consequences of achievement goals in college: Predicting continued interest and
performance over time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 315–330.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Durik, A. M., Barron, K. E., Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., & Tauer, J. M. (2008). The
role of achievement goals in the development of interest: Reciprocal relations between
achievement goals, interest, and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 105.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.105
Harackiewicz, J. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1993). Achievement goals and intrinsic motivation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 904–915. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.5.904
Harackiewicz, J. M., & Hulleman, C. S. (2010). The importance of interest: The role of achievement
goals and task values in promoting the development of interest. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, 4(1), 42–52. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00207.x
Hein, V., & Hagger, M. S. (2007). Global self-esteem, goal achievement orientations, and self-
determined behavioural regulations in a physical education setting. Journal of Sports Sciences,
25(2), 149–159. doi:10.1080/02640410600598315
Heyman, G. D., & Dweck, C. S. (1992). Achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: Their relation
and their role in academic motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 16, 231–247. doi:10.1007/
BF00991653
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 1003

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:
10.1080/10705519909540118
Hulleman, C. S., Durik, A. M., Schweigert, S. B., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2008). Task values, achieve-
ment goals, and interest: An integrative analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2),
398. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.398
Kim, J. I., Schallert, D. L., & Kim, M. (2010). An integrative cultural view of achievement motiv-
ation: Parental and classroom predictors of children’s goal orientations when learning math-
ematics in Korea. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 418. doi:10.1037/a0018676
Liem, A. D., Lau, S., & Nie, Y. (2008). The role of self-efficacy, task value, and achievement goals
in predicting learning strategies, task disengagement, peer relationship, and achievement out-
come. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 486–512. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.08.001
Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom goal structure, student
motivation, and academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 487–503. doi:
10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070258
 & Spray, C. M. (2010). Motivation in the exercise set-
Moreno, J. A., Gonzalez-Cutre, D., Sicilia, A.,
ting: Integrating constructs from the approach–avoidance achievement goal framework and
self-determination theory. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 542–550. doi:10.1016/
j.psychsport.2010.06.003
Muthen, L. K. & Muthen, B. O. (2010). Mplus User’s Guide, v. 6.0. Los Angeles, CA: Muthen &
Muthen.
Ntoumanis, N. (2001). Empirical links between achievement goal theory and self-determination
theory in sport. Journal of Sports Sciences, 19, 397–409. doi:10.1080/026404101300149357
Oh, J. E., Choo, S. Y., & Lim, S. M. (2011). The relationships between achievement goal orienta-
tion and avoidance strategies in academic evaluation setting: Comparison of middle and high
school students. Korean Journal of Youth Studies, 18, 179–213.
Park, H., Kim, Y., & Kang, J. (2007). Development of KEDI comprehensive tests (III): Analysis of rela-
tionships among students’ psychological, family, & school characteristics on achievement. Seoul:
Korean Educational Development Institute.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation termin-
ology, theory, and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 92–104. doi:10.1006/
ceps.1999.1017
Roeser, R. W., Marachi, R., & Gehlbach, H. (2002). A goal theory perspective on teachers’ profes-
sional identities and contexts of teaching. In C. Midgley (Ed.), Goals, goal structures, and pat-
terns of adaptive learning (pp. 205–243). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory: An organismic-dialect-
ical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp.
3–33). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motiv-
ation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68.
Ryu, H., Kim, Y., Hyun, J., Kim, I., Kang, S., Kim, H., & Park, S. (2005). Korea Education Longitudinal
Study 2005(I): Preliminary Investigation Report. Seoul: Korean Educational Development
Institute.
Schunk, D. H. (2011). Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Schunk, D. H., Meece, J. R., & Pintrich, P. R. (2014). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and
applications (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.
Senko, C., & Tropiano, K. L. (2016). Comparing three models of achievement goals: Goal orienta-
tions, goal standards, and goal complexes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 1178. doi:
10.1037/edu0000114
Sheldon, K. M., Arndt, J., & Houser-Marko, L. (2003). In search of the organismic valuing process:
The human tendency to move towards beneficial goal choices. Journal of Personality, 71,
835–869. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.7105006
1004 Y. CHO AND M. KIM

Spray, C. M., John Wang, C. K., Biddle, S. J., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. (2006). Understanding motiv-
ation in sport: An experimental test of achievement goal and self determination theories.
European Journal of Sport Science, 6(1), 43–51. doi:10.1080/17461390500422879
Standage, M., & Treasure, D. C. (2002). Relationship among achievement goal orientations and
multidimensional situational motivation in physical education. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 72(1), 87–103. doi:10.1348/000709902158784
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in self-
determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educational
Psychologist, 41(1), 19–31.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An
overview and analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and
academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 1–38). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.