Motivation-Achievement Cycles in Learning: A Literature Review and Research Agenda
Saved in:
| Title: | Motivation-Achievement Cycles in Learning: A Literature Review and Research Agenda |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Vu, TuongVan (ORCID |
| Source: | Educational Psychology Review. Mar 2022 34(1):39-71. |
| Availability: | Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/ |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 33 |
| Publication Date: | 2022 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Information Analyses |
| Descriptors: | Student Motivation, Academic Achievement, Literature Reviews, Educational Theories, Educational Research, Research Methodology, Student Behavior |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s10648-021-09616-7 |
| ISSN: | 1040-726X |
| Abstract: | The question of how learners' motivation influences their academic achievement and vice versa has been the subject of intensive research due to its theoretical relevance and important implications for the field of education. Here, we present our understanding of how influential theories of academic motivation have conceptualized reciprocal interactions between motivation and achievement and the kinds of evidence that support this reciprocity. While the reciprocal nature of the relationship between motivation and academic achievement has been established in the literature, further insights into several features of this relationship are still lacking. We therefore present a research agenda where we identify theoretical and methodological challenges that could inspire further understanding of the reciprocal relationship between motivation and achievement as well as inform future interventions. Specifically, the research agenda includes the recommendation that future research considers (1) multiple motivation constructs, (2) behavioral mediators, (3) a network approach, (4) alignment of intervals of measurement and the short vs. long time scales of motivation constructs, (5) designs that meet the criteria for making causal, reciprocal inferences, (6) appropriate statistical models, (7) alternatives to self-reports, (8) different ways of measuring achievement, and (9) generalizability of the reciprocal relations to various developmental, ethnic, and sociocultural groups. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2022 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1326092 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGSlrnXKprmGUiIzoumJakyAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDF-PQd6EsfNoGiRjSQIBEICBm9FWg_4yb6ayatKMM2PHuHTxl7ywJrHRGTXX_0_xQcE8T_tQwdvI6ImG4Ll72xB3_Jb15oAhnROltYdfOzDElfXut09IVjlw3zojHbbw3BvzBExOsWcPwlInb5OtLiyK4_2P1oHUIKnVxZnv8BJbjMuz13GE7B5rMSF4YicUSL5-enzn-8Z4iWwuEpyFMkUzU6Po8XEURctfcvlF Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0155185957;epv01mar.22;2022Feb14.04:40;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0155185957-1">Motivation-Achievement Cycles in Learning: a Literature Review and Research Agenda </title> <p>The question of how learners' motivation influences their academic achievement and vice versa has been the subject of intensive research due to its theoretical relevance and important implications for the field of education. Here, we present our understanding of how influential theories of academic motivation have conceptualized reciprocal interactions between motivation and achievement and the kinds of evidence that support this reciprocity. While the reciprocal nature of the relationship between motivation and academic achievement has been established in the literature, further insights into several features of this relationship are still lacking. We therefore present a research agenda where we identify theoretical and methodological challenges that could inspire further understanding of the reciprocal relationship between motivation and achievement as well as inform future interventions. Specifically, the research agenda includes the recommendation that future research considers (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) multiple motivation constructs, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) behavioral mediators, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) a network approach, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref4">4</reflink>) alignment of intervals of measurement and the short vs. long time scales of motivation constructs, (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref5">5</reflink>) designs that meet the criteria for making causal, reciprocal inferences, (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref6">6</reflink>) appropriate statistical models, (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref7">7</reflink>) alternatives to self-reports, (<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref8">8</reflink>) different ways of measuring achievement, and (<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref9">9</reflink>) generalizability of the reciprocal relations to various developmental, ethnic, and sociocultural groups.</p> <p>Keywords: Learning; Motivation; Academic achievement; Reciprocal; Review</p> <hd id="AN0155185957-2">Introduction</hd> <p>In most countries, motivation for school clearly declines throughout school time (Martin, [<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref10">117</reflink>]; OECD, [<reflink idref="bib138" id="ref11">138</reflink>]; Scherrer &amp; Preckel, [<reflink idref="bib157" id="ref12">157</reflink>]) with individual heterogeneity in changes depending on specific motivation constructs across academic domains (Gaspard et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref13">63</reflink>]; Scherrer &amp; Preckel, [<reflink idref="bib157" id="ref14">157</reflink>]). Given this undesirable decline and the fact that motivation can be targeted by interventions, motivation has long been a central focus of educational psychology. The influence of motivation on achievement is well-documented (Burnette et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref15">23</reflink>]; Gottfried et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref16">65</reflink>]; Greene &amp; Azevedo, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref17">70</reflink>]; Valentine et al., [<reflink idref="bib178" id="ref18">178</reflink>]). Yet the reverse relation is also often found, as achievement can affect motivation through experiences of success or failure (Garon-Carrier et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref19">62</reflink>]; Guay et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref20">73</reflink>]; Jansen et al., [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref21">92</reflink>]). A common view is that both the "motivation → achievement" and "achievement → motivation" links exist and that motivation and achievement influence each other in a reciprocal manner over time (Huang, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref22">89</reflink>]; Marsh &amp; Craven, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref23">109</reflink>]; Marsh &amp; Martin, [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref24">110</reflink>]; Möller et al., [<reflink idref="bib124" id="ref25">124</reflink>]).</p> <p>Researchers have been studying this reciprocal relationship between motivation and achievement for at least 20 years (Marsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref26">112</reflink>]). However, further insights into the nature of the relationship are currently lacking; features such as the direction of causality, behavioral mediating pathways, possible effect of the time scale, and generalizations to different motivation constructs and population groups are currently not well understood. These issues are important not just from a scientific viewpoint, but also from a practical viewpoint. To be able to design the most effective interventions aimed at improving achievement and motivation, we need to improve our understanding of the reciprocity to identify the best timing, duration, content, and appropriate target variables of such interventions, as well as other contextual factors contributing to their success.</p> <p>Our objective is to summarize the current understanding of motivation-achievement interactions (drawing mainly from the academic motivation literature) and to identify the theoretical and methodological challenges that could inspire further advances to understand such specific features of this reciprocal relationship. While an exhaustive review of the literature is beyond the scope of the current paper (see the Special Issue on Prominent Motivation Theories: The Past, Present, and Future on Contemporary Educational Psychology, edited by Wigfield and Koenka, [<reflink idref="bib189" id="ref27">189</reflink>]), we start with a summary of how influential theories of academic motivation have conceptualized reciprocity between motivation and achievement, and the types of empirical evidence that have been found in support of the reciprocal relationships. In our current understanding, we have found areas of consensus, but have also identified sizable gaps. This leads to a recommended research agenda for future empirical studies on the reciprocal relations between motivation and academic achievement and suggestions on how these insights could inform future interventions.</p> <hd id="AN0155185957-3">Reciprocal Relations in Theories of Academic Motivation</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0155185957-4">Commonalities Between Theories</hd> <p>Individual differences in academic achievement are partly the result of differences in motivation for learning (Arens et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref28">4</reflink>]; Burnette et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref29">23</reflink>]; Eccles &amp; Wigfield, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref30">51</reflink>]; Guay et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref31">73</reflink>]; Huang, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref32">89</reflink>]; Marsh &amp; Craven, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref33">109</reflink>]; Marsh &amp; Martin, [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref34">110</reflink>]; Robbins et al., [<reflink idref="bib148" id="ref35">148</reflink>]; Seaton et al., [<reflink idref="bib163" id="ref36">163</reflink>]). This robust finding has spawned a wealth of theories on academic motivation and how to stimulate it. These theories differ in both substance and focus, but also have many common elements. Figure 1 represents an attempt to synthesize, for the purposes of this paper, some of the commonalities of well-established theories that have had an impact in the field of academic motivation (leaning strongly on the seminal review of Eccles &amp; Wigfield, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref37">51</reflink>] and adding theories that have gained traction since). Our goal is not to comprehensively review and synthesize the existing theories (although this is an urgent task, Koenka, [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref38">98</reflink>]), but rather to illustrate how the commonalities between the theories suggest a framework in which the reciprocal relationships between motivation and achievement can be studied and understood.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 The motivation-achievement cycle, a summary model of motivation-achievement interactions, capturing some of the commonalities within prominent theories of academic motivation. Blue boxes denote motivation constructs, green (dotted) arrows behavioral intermediaries (quality of learning and quantity of learning), and yellow boxes and arrows denote achievement-related constructs (flow and perceived performance). Gray arrows denote outside influences that are themselves not part of motivation-achievement interactions (e.g., cultural and social influences that affect both expectancies and values)</p> <p>Motivation has up to 102 definitions (Kleinginna &amp; Kleinginna, [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref39">96</reflink>]), but is often seen as a condition that energizes (or de-energizes) behaviors. In many theories, motivation results from what can be called an appraisal of the behavior that one is motivated to perform (the word appraisal is rarely used with regard to motivation, but the processes described are akin to those captured in the emotion literature). In that appraisal, two elements are combined (Eccles &amp; Wigfield, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref40">51</reflink>]): the value attached to the behavior and its outcomes, and the expectancy of the likelihood of certain outcomes of the behavior. These two sides, expectancy and value, are explicit in expectancy-value theory (Eccles &amp; Wigfield, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref41">51</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref42">52</reflink>]), attribution theory (Graham, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref43">68</reflink>]; Weiner, [<reflink idref="bib188" id="ref44">188</reflink>]), control-value theory (Pekrun, [<reflink idref="bib139" id="ref45">139</reflink>]; Pekrun et al., [<reflink idref="bib140" id="ref46">140</reflink>]), and Dweck's integrative theory (Dweck, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref47">50</reflink>]).</p> <p>Many other theories focus either on the value attached to behavior or on expectancies. Theories on the values side of the ledger (goal theories, flow theory, self-determination theory, individual differences theories, and interest theories) focus on interest, goals, needs for relatedness, competence, and autonomy. Theories on the expectancy side, notably self-efficacy theory, control theories, social-cognitive self-regulation theories, and the process-oriented metacognitive model, focus on how students' beliefs (or perception<emph>)</emph> about their competence and efficacy (i.e., academic self-concept, see below), expectancies for success or failure, and sense of control over achievement affect motivation. Different constructs have been studied that tap into these beliefs underlying one's expectancies, such as academic self-concept, self-efficacy, locus of control, and perceived control.</p> <p>A motivation construct frequently used to study the reciprocal motivation-achievement relationship is <emph>academic self-concept</emph> (hitherto, ASC, discussed in further details in section "Different motivation constructs" below) which is how individuals evaluate their ability specifically in an academic domain (Marsh &amp; Craven, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref48">109</reflink>]; Marsh &amp; Martin, [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref49">110</reflink>]; Shavelson et al., [<reflink idref="bib166" id="ref50">166</reflink>]). ASC is a component distinct from physical, social, and emotional self-concepts within the multidimensional, hierarchical model of self-concept (Marsh &amp; Craven, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref51">109</reflink>]; Marsh &amp; Martin, [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref52">110</reflink>]). ASC is itself also multidimensional and usually measured by the Self Description Questionnaire (Marsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref53">112</reflink>]; Marsh &amp; O'Neill, [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref54">111</reflink>]); its academic subscales tap into general academic self-concept, math self-concept, and verbal self-concept. Much empirical research on motivation-achievement interactions operationalizes motivation as ASC in a certain academic domain, most often in mathematics and verbal subjects such as language and reading (Guay et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref55">73</reflink>]; Seaton et al., [<reflink idref="bib163" id="ref56">163</reflink>]); for meta-analyses and reviews, see Burnette et al. ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref57">23</reflink>]), Eccles and Wigfield ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref58">51</reflink>]), Marsh and Craven ([<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref59">109</reflink>]), Marsh and Martin ([<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref60">110</reflink>]), and Robbins et al. ([<reflink idref="bib148" id="ref61">148</reflink>]).</p> <p>It is worth noting that many theories posit that beliefs about the self (including self-concept and self-esteem and mindset/implicit theory of self attributes) are important <emph>causes</emph> of human behavior and learning (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref62">7</reflink>]; Carver &amp; White, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref63">25</reflink>]; Deci &amp; Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref64">44</reflink>]; Molden &amp; Dweck, [<reflink idref="bib123" id="ref65">123</reflink>]). Although the idea that ASC or other beliefs about the self affect achievement has been challenged (see the discussion in Marsh &amp; Craven, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref66">109</reflink>]), there has also been much empirical research in support of it (Burnette et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref67">23</reflink>]; Gottfried et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref68">65</reflink>]; Greene &amp; Azevedo, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref69">70</reflink>]; and the meta-analyses of Huang, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref70">89</reflink>]; Valentine et al., [<reflink idref="bib178" id="ref71">178</reflink>]). One suggested pathway is that positive self-beliefs can lead to self-affirmative, self-regulatory, academic behaviors (or <emph>achievement behaviors</emph>, see below) such as exerting effort, demonstrating persistence, and selecting goals that are conducive to the achievement of academic goals.</p> <p>Another pathway for beliefs about the self to act as a causal agent on academic achievement, according to self-worth theory (Covington, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref72">35</reflink>]), is that students with positive beliefs about themselves assign high and positive values to academic activities. Academic activities are then viewed as important, intrinsically interesting, of high expected utility and of low cost, which leads to high achievement (Valentine et al., [<reflink idref="bib178" id="ref73">178</reflink>]). Also, in self-determination theory, feelings of competence are a precursor of intrinsic motivation, again leading to a higher value being assigned to academic activities if one feels competent. This would then lead to behaviors that support later achievement. A recent study of more than 30,000 college students found that need for competence (relative to need for autonomy and relatedness) is the strongest predictor of perceived learning gains (Yu &amp; Levesque-Bristol, [<reflink idref="bib195" id="ref74">195</reflink>]).</p> <p>An appraisal of values and expectancies leads to the decision to engage (Cleary &amp; Zimmerman, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref75">32</reflink>]; Kuhl, [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref76">101</reflink>]; Schunk &amp; DiBenedetto, [<reflink idref="bib161" id="ref77">161</reflink>]). According to the self-regulatory account of motivation (Cleary &amp; Zimmerman, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref78">32</reflink>]; Schunk &amp; DiBenedetto, [<reflink idref="bib161" id="ref79">161</reflink>]), students first identify values and expectancy of learning activities, then engage in self-regulatory processes (self-instruction, attention focusing, task strategies, etc.). Following their performance, students conduct self-evaluations, infer causal attributions, and make adaptive or maladaptive attributions of their successes and failures. This account stresses the importance of metacognition, where students who can monitor their learning processes can then maintain their engagement in the learning cycle.</p> <p>The appraisal of values and expectancies can also trigger academic emotions, such as pride in achievement, hope, boredom, and enjoyment. Control-value theory (Pekrun, [<reflink idref="bib139" id="ref80">139</reflink>]; Pekrun et al., [<reflink idref="bib140" id="ref81">140</reflink>]) describes how such emotions codetermine what are termed <emph>achievement behaviors</emph>—behaviors that are conducive to the achievement of academic goals. In line with dominant theories of emotion (e.g. Frijda, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref82">60</reflink>]; Lazarus, [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref83">104</reflink>]), Pekrun ([<reflink idref="bib139" id="ref84">139</reflink>]) assumed that an appraisal of control of the learner and the value of learning activities lie at the basis of academic emotions. For example, if a learner values an academic outcome and believes it is somewhat under his or her control, he or she may feel the emotion of hope. While it is not certain that the same kinds of appraisal lie at the basis of both motivation and academic emotions, it would seem plausible and parsimonious. Indeed, Pekrun ([<reflink idref="bib139" id="ref85">139</reflink>]) suggested that this is the case, though he cautioned that more research is needed.</p> <p>Figure 1 may raise the question of what actually distinguishes motivation from emotions, since both seem to result from an appraisal of the situation, and both energize or de-energize certain behaviors. This is a valid question, and Kleinginna and Kleinginna ([<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref86">96</reflink>]) already noted that a sharp line between motivation and emotion is difficult to draw (also see Berridge, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref87">12</reflink>]). Emotions will typically be more temporary than motivation, but this is a fuzzy distinction. Emotions and motivation may also interact. Emotions may for example make a learner assign more or less value to academic activities, or may change the learner's expectations around their chances of success or failure, which then changes the appraisal that underlies motivation. Literature showing that emotions and academic achievement also form reciprocal relationships over time has recently emerged (Putwain et al., [<reflink idref="bib144" id="ref88">144</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0155185957-5">Pathways from Motivation to Achievement and Vice Versa</hd> <p>While it is generally accepted that motivation affects achievement, it is not completely clear <emph>how</emph>. Theoretically, two routes can be discerned (see Fig. 1). The <emph>first</emph> is the quantity (frequency and intensity) of academic behaviors aimed at achievement (such as effort, persistence, etc.) (Cury et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref89">39</reflink>]; Dettmers et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref90">45</reflink>]; Doumen et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref91">47</reflink>]; Marsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref92">115</reflink>]; Pinxten et al., [<reflink idref="bib141" id="ref93">141</reflink>]; Plant et al., [<reflink idref="bib142" id="ref94">142</reflink>]; Trautwein et al., [<reflink idref="bib173" id="ref95">173</reflink>]). As a <emph>second</emph> route, higher levels of motivation could also be associated with higher quality of academic behaviors; for example, by adopting effective learning strategies, adaptive meta-cognitive strategies, spaced practice, elaboration, retrieval practice, interleaving, dual coding, and so on. Several theories of academic motivation support the idea that higher motivation leads to higher quality behaviors. Both intrinsic motivation (self-determination theory, Deci &amp; Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref96">44</reflink>]) and interest (interest theories, Alexander et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref97">1</reflink>]) have been linked to deeper learning (Alexander et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref98">1</reflink>]; Schiefele, [<reflink idref="bib159" id="ref99">159</reflink>]; Scott Rigby et al., [<reflink idref="bib162" id="ref100">162</reflink>]). Positive academic motivations have also been suggested to facilitate creative learning strategies (control-value theory, Pekrun, [<reflink idref="bib139" id="ref101">139</reflink>]), and incremental implicit beliefs (growth mindset) to facilitate mastery-oriented strategies (Burnette et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref102">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>Effects of achievement on motivation may also take two routes. The <emph>first</emph> is through perceived achievement. Many theories, such as self-efficacy theory (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref103">7</reflink>]), expectancy-value theory (Eccles &amp; Wigfield, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref104">51</reflink>]), control theories (Skinner, [<reflink idref="bib168" id="ref105">168</reflink>]), and attribution theory (Weiner, [<reflink idref="bib188" id="ref106">188</reflink>]) explicitly suggest that past achievement leads a learner to experience feelings of self-efficacy and perception of control. What matters most in this regard is the learner's own evaluation of this outcome, for which we use the term perceived performance in Fig. 1. High perceived performance will thus change the expectancies of learners (i.e., make them trust that good outcomes are attainable), but it may also alter the value attached to learning activities. For example, in self-determination theory, the feeling of competence (strengthened by positive perceived achievement) is a basic need that increases the intrinsic value of learning.</p> <p>The <emph>second</emph> route from achievement to motivation is central to flow theory (Csikzentmihalyi, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref107">38</reflink>]). An activity in which the learner is holistically immersed can generate a feeling of flow, which is rewarding in its own right and alters the value attached to the academic behaviors.</p> <hd id="AN0155185957-6">External Factors Affecting Motivation, Effort, and Achievement</hd> <p>Figure 1 suggests a positive feedback loop, with motivation feeding achievement, and achievement feeding motivation—an idea that is alluded to in some theories (Cleary &amp; Zimmerman, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref108">32</reflink>]; Eccles &amp; Wigfield, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref109">51</reflink>]; Schunk &amp; DiBenedetto, [<reflink idref="bib161" id="ref110">161</reflink>]). Most explicit in this regard is the self-regulatory account of motivation (Cleary &amp; Zimmerman, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref111">32</reflink>]) where the pathway between self-regulation and achievement is a cyclical feedback loop. Schunk and DiBenedetto ([<reflink idref="bib161" id="ref112">161</reflink>]) suggest an iterative process between perceived progress, self-efficacy, and goal pursuit. Bandura's social cognitive theory also stresses the reciprocity of the interactions between behavioral, environmental, and personal factors (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref113">7</reflink>]). Crucially, this raises the question of how such a positive feedback loop could get started, and how, once started, it could lead to any other outcome than either perfect motivation and achievement, or negative motivation and failure. The answer to those questions may rest in the <emph>external influences</emph> on motivation and achievement. These are indicated in Fig. 1 by the gray arrows:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Extrinsic rewards and requirements tied to achievement, e.g., schools or parents, may change the value attributed to academic behavior, and so change motivation. Although this has been described in self-determination theory as potentially detracting from intrinsic motivation (Deci &amp; Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref114">44</reflink>]), it may also jolt a motivation-achievement cycle that would otherwise not start (Hidi &amp; Harackiewicz, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref115">83</reflink>]). Supporting autonomy and creating relatedness are other ways in which external actors can increase the value attached to learning, increasing motivation and achievement (Deci &amp; Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref116">44</reflink>]).</item> <p></p> <item> Cultural norms (described in control theories and control-value theory, Pekrun, [<reflink idref="bib139" id="ref117">139</reflink>]; Skinner, [<reflink idref="bib168" id="ref118">168</reflink>]), social learning, and verbal persuasion by others (social cognitive theory, Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref119">7</reflink>]) can alter the expectations, values, and attributional processes of learners (expectancy-value theory, attribution theories, Eccles &amp; Wigfield, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref120">52</reflink>]; Graham, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref121">68</reflink>]), and therefore keep a motivation-achievement cycle going that would otherwise falter or not start up.</item> <p></p> <item> Effort is not only a result of the learner's motivation but also of outside requirements (e.g., deadlines and exams set by the educational institution, Kerdijk et al., [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref122">95</reflink>]). Such outside requirements can lead to achievement in the absence of strong motivation.</item> <p></p> <item> Quality of learning is not only affected by motivation but also by the abilities of the learner and the quality of teaching, instructions, and study materials. Thus, achievement can increase in the absence of stronger motivation, because of better support for learning.</item> <p></p> <item> Perceived achievement is not only determined by true achievement but also by elements of educational design, such as the form in which feedback is given (e.g., a grade that either accentuates the ranking of the student or the degree to which the study material was mastered, or feedback on effort instead of performance, De Kraker-Pauw et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref123">43</reflink>]). Perceived achievement is also subject to interpretative, comparison, and attributional processes (described in attribution theories, Graham, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref124">68</reflink>]; Weiner, [<reflink idref="bib188" id="ref125">188</reflink>]). This means that true high achievement can still fail to support motivation (e.g., when a sibling performs even better), or low achievement can be viewed in such a way so as to not be detrimental for motivation.</item> </ulist> <p>Such external factors are not only important for a complete causal understanding of motivation-achievement interactions (i.e., highly relevant for educational researchers) but also because they offer entry points for interventions that enhance motivation, achievement, or both (i.e., highly relevant for educators).</p> <hd id="AN0155185957-7">What Avenues for Empirical Research Have Been Explored?</hd> <p>Figure 1 shows that theories of academic achievement imply a reciprocal relationship between motivation and achievement. A comprehensive review of studies is beyond the scope of this manuscript (see narrative reviews and meta-analyses) (Huang, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref126">89</reflink>]; Marsh &amp; Craven, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref127">109</reflink>]; Scharmer, [<reflink idref="bib154" id="ref128">154</reflink>]; Valentine et al., [<reflink idref="bib178" id="ref129">178</reflink>]; Valentine &amp; Dubois, [<reflink idref="bib177" id="ref130">177</reflink>]), but we will review the kinds of evidence that have been brought to bear in support of such reciprocal relationships. Analyzing this evidence allows future directions on the field to be charted.</p> <p>The earliest support for the relationship between motivation (focusing specifically on self-concepts and other self beliefs) and academic achievement comes from cross-sectional and correlational studies, reviewed by Hansford and Hattie ([<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref131">76</reflink>]). These studies established a relationship between self-concepts and academic achievement, but no causal paths. Subsequent work set out to investigate the causal and temporal ordering of the effects using structural equation models (SEMs) and longitudinal data (e.g., Marsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref132">112</reflink>]). To date, the majority of evidence for the reciprocal relationship between self-concept and achievement has come from such time-series or cross-sectional data collected at schools, to which various SEMs have been fitted (see Marsh &amp; Craven, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref133">109</reflink>] for a narrative review and Huang, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref134">89</reflink>] for a meta-analysis of such studies).</p> <p>More recent studies showcase impressive efforts of researchers to use large sample sizes and longitudinal data of up to six waves, allowing changes in motivation and achievement of students to be tracked across their school career (e.g., Marsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref135">116</reflink>]; Murayama et al., [<reflink idref="bib128" id="ref136">128</reflink>]). A recent meta-analysis (Scharmer, [<reflink idref="bib154" id="ref137">154</reflink>]), which includes such studies that were published between 2011 and August 2020, showed that overall, the pooled effect of achievement on motivation was twice (β =.12) the pooled effect of motivation on achievement (β =.06), though both are what is conventionally considered a small effect. These findings are in line with Valentine and DuBois ([<reflink idref="bib177" id="ref138">177</reflink>]) who found that academic achievement had a stronger effect on self-belief than vice versa. In contrast, Huang ([<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref139">89</reflink>])'s meta-analysis found a slightly larger effect of self-concept on achievement than the other way around. Valentine and DuBois ([<reflink idref="bib177" id="ref140">177</reflink>])'s findings were also more similar to Scharmer's ([<reflink idref="bib154" id="ref141">154</reflink>]) in terms of the size of the effects (achievement on self-belief: β = 0.08; self-belief on achievement: β = 0.15). Huang ([<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref142">89</reflink>]), however, found considerably larger ranges of effects overall (achievement on self-concept: β = 0.19–0.25; self-concept on achievement: β = 0.20–0.27).</p> <p>There have also been interventions and randomized controlled field studies in which either self-concept or other motivation constructs were manipulated (e.g., Savi et al., [<reflink idref="bib153" id="ref143">153</reflink>]; Vansteenkiste et al., [<reflink idref="bib182" id="ref144">182</reflink>]), thereby allowing for causal inferences. The meta-analysis of these studies by Lazowski and Hulleman ([<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref145">105</reflink>]) showed that, while interventions targeting motivation usually led to positive outcomes on achievement (medium effect size; average Cohen's <emph>d</emph> of 0.49), it did not matter which theory was at the basis of the intervention— all theories of motivation performed about equally well. However, experimental studies that look at the reverse causal path, manipulating achievement (or the perception of achievement) to affect motivation, are scarce. One example is an intervention study by Betz and Schifano ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref146">13</reflink>]) where students were ensured of successful completion of a task followed by affirmation of their accomplishments with applause and verbal praise. This resulted in an increase in self-efficacy (a motivation construct highly related to ASC, Bong &amp; Skaalvik, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref147">15</reflink>]). Nevertheless, to the best of our knowledge, few studies have done both: combining experimental manipulation <emph>and</emph> longitudinal design to investigate reciprocal motivation-achievement relations (an exception that we are aware of is Bejjani et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref148">11</reflink>] which will be discussed later).</p> <hd id="AN0155185957-8">Research Agenda</hd> <p>The overview given above suggests that empirical evidence for reciprocal relations between motivation and achievement exists. However, several features of such relationships are still poorly understood. Also, some doubts about the robustness of the effects have recently surfaced (which we discuss in detail in section "Choice of appropriate statistical models" below). In other words, there are still unanswered theoretical and empirical questions about the reciprocal relationship between motivation and academic achievement. Below, we outline these issues and a <emph>research agenda</emph> for future research that can answer these remaining questions. These are organized into questions pertaining to theoretical lacunae, methodological challenges, and questions about the scope of theories and the generalizability of empirical results.</p> <hd id="AN0155185957-9">Theoretical Lacunae</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0155185957-10">Multiple Motivation Constructs</hd> <p>First, as we presented above, many motivation theories have implicitly or explicitly conceptualized the relationship between a plethora of motivation constructs and achievement as reciprocal. However, to date, a large amount of empirical research on reciprocal motivation-achievement interactions has mainly studied <emph>ASC</emph> (Arens et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref149">5</reflink>]; Brunner et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref150">22</reflink>]; Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref151">30</reflink>]; Dicke et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref152">46</reflink>]; Gottfried et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref153">65</reflink>]; Grygiel et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref154">72</reflink>]; Guay et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref155">73</reflink>]; Guo et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref156">74</reflink>]; Möller et al., [<reflink idref="bib125" id="ref157">125</reflink>]; Niepel et al., [<reflink idref="bib133" id="ref158">133</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib134" id="ref159">134</reflink>]; Retelsdorf et al., [<reflink idref="bib147" id="ref160">147</reflink>]; Viljaranta et al., [<reflink idref="bib184" id="ref161">184</reflink>]; Walgermo et al., [<reflink idref="bib186" id="ref162">186</reflink>]; for meta-analyses and reviews, see Marsh &amp; Craven, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref163">109</reflink>]; Marsh &amp; Martin, [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref164">110</reflink>]; Valentine et al., [<reflink idref="bib178" id="ref165">178</reflink>]; Valentine &amp; Dubois, [<reflink idref="bib177" id="ref166">177</reflink>]). This raises the question of whether findings generalize to other motivation constructs that are related yet could also have a distinctive reciprocal relationship with academic achievement.</p> <p>Moreover, although the studies involving ASC were groundbreaking attempts to show reciprocal relations, there are several reasons why future studies should contemplate using different motivation constructs other than ASC. First and foremost, ASC and achievement are highly intertwined, as items in ASC questionnaires usually ask students to report on their achievement (e.g., "I get good marks in most academic subjects," "I learn quickly in most academic subjects" (Marsh &amp; O'Neill, [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref167">111</reflink>]). Fulmer and Frijters ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref168">61</reflink>], p. 228) in their critique of how motivation is measured in educational psychology also made the point that "self-report measures confound the measurement of motivation with other variables, such as ability and attention."</p> <p>Second, a meta-analysis investigating mean-level changes of a number of important motivation constructs concluded that the decline in motivation shows non-trivial differences across these constructs (Scherrer &amp; Preckel, [<reflink idref="bib157" id="ref169">157</reflink>]). An important implication of this finding is that more attention should be paid to differentiation among multiple motivation constructs in future empirical studies.</p> <p>Third, ASC might also be less malleable than other motivation constructs since general self-concept is relatively stable—especially for those at lower levels (Scherbaum et al., [<reflink idref="bib156" id="ref170">156</reflink>]). Research into the Big-Fish-Little-Pond phenomenon (i.e., students in high-achieving classes having lower ASC than those with comparable aptitude in regular classes) suggests that domain-specific ASC (more so than general ASC) is influenced by social comparison (Fang et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref171">55</reflink>]; Marsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref172">116</reflink>]). Nevertheless, it may be hard to manipulate ASC in a randomized controlled trial (although it has been indirectly done by affirming general self-esteem and personal values, Cohen et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref173">33</reflink>]). Other motivation constructs that can be modified through external influences (e.g., situational interest, perceived control, etc.) might yield useful guidance for designing interventions.</p> <p>Furthermore, the heavy focus on ASC may reflect an emphasis on a cognitive, intrapsychological theoretical view of motivation while losing sight of social, contextual, historical, and environmental factors that arguably also play important roles (see the Special Issue on Prominent Motivation Theories: The Past, Present, and Future on Contemporary Educational Psychology, edited by Wigfield and Koenka, [<reflink idref="bib189" id="ref174">189</reflink>]). Last but not least, ASC is mainly self-reported and, despite the availability of well-constructed measures, it suffers from all the caveats inherent to self-report measures (see section "Alternatives to self-reports" below).</p> <p>Given that there are other well-studied motivation constructs such as achievement goals, self-efficacy, interest, and intrinsic motivation (Scherrer et al., [<reflink idref="bib158" id="ref175">158</reflink>]; Scherrer &amp; Preckel, [<reflink idref="bib157" id="ref176">157</reflink>]), further research with multiple non-ASC motivation constructs included as concomitant predictors of academic achievement is therefore much needed. In recent investigations of the reciprocal relationship between motivation and achievement, motivation constructs other than ASC have started to be included (e.g., self-efficacy in Grigg et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref177">71</reflink>]; Schöber et al., [<reflink idref="bib160" id="ref178">160</reflink>]; achievement goals in Scherrer et al., [<reflink idref="bib158" id="ref179">158</reflink>]; intrinsic motivation in Hebbecker et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref180">81</reflink>]; and interest in Höft &amp; Bernholt, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref181">86</reflink>]). Yet, these studies are still small in number. Twenty-four out of 41 studies included in the meta-analysis of Scharmer ([<reflink idref="bib154" id="ref182">154</reflink>]) still used ASC as the main motivation construct of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0155185957-11">Behaviors as Mediating Factors in the Motivation → Achievement Link</hd> <p>As mentioned above, theories of academic motivation imply several pathways through which motivation influences achievement and vice versa (see Fig. 1). For the motivation → achievement link, the rationale is that motivation leads to active and effortful commitment to learning (e.g., E. Skinner et al., [<reflink idref="bib169" id="ref183">169</reflink>]), implying that motivation constructs that are beliefs about competence and efficacy influence achievement by inducing self-regulatory, academic behaviors. In a similar vein, the volition theory of motivation (Eccles &amp; Wigfield, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref184">51</reflink>]; Kuhl, [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref185">101</reflink>]) posits that motivational beliefs only lead to the decision to act. Once the individual engages in action, volitional processes are required and determine whether the intention is fulfilled. Thus, self-regulatory processes theoretically mediate the link between beliefs and accomplishment of the task.</p> <p>However, there is a relative paucity of empirical research and especially longitudinal studies that include measures of such regulatory processes. Usually, when studies found reciprocal relations between ASC and other motivation constructs and achievement, they left unanswered which pathways mediate the link between such beliefs and achievement (Marsh &amp; Martin, [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref186">110</reflink>]). To our knowledge, initial attempts to study mediating processes in longitudinal designs (Marsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref187">115</reflink>]; Pinxten et al., [<reflink idref="bib141" id="ref188">141</reflink>]; Trautwein et al., [<reflink idref="bib173" id="ref189">173</reflink>]) yielded mixed findings with regards to the role of effort in the relationship between ASC and academic achievement. This may be due to the fact that there are multiple operationalizations and evaluations of the construct <emph>effort</emph> (Massin, [<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref190">118</reflink>]), which may have varying relations with academic achievement. Specifically, Marsh et al. ([<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref191">115</reflink>]) and Pinxten et al. ([<reflink idref="bib141" id="ref192">141</reflink>]) measured <emph>subjective</emph> effort—i.e., students were asked to rate their own effort expenditure. Students might perceive that having to try hard (i.e., expending a great deal of effort) is indicative of a lack of academic ability (Baars et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref193">6</reflink>]). Subjective effort, as opposed to objective effort, might therefore have a very different relation to motivation and achievement.</p> <p>In non-longitudinal studies looking at the relations between academic motivation and achievement, the evidence on behavioral mediators also shows differentiation related to how effort is measured. When effort is measured as quality of learning (e.g., selecting adaptive goals, adopting higher-quality learning strategies, etc.), there is some evidence for a positive link between academic achievement and effort (Trigwell et al., [<reflink idref="bib174" id="ref194">174</reflink>]). However, when effort is measured as a <emph>quantity</emph> of learning (such as study time, practice time, time-on-task, persistence, etc.), this relationship seems either weak or only significant after controlling for quality of learning (Cury et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref195">39</reflink>]; Dettmers et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref196">45</reflink>]; Doumen et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref197">47</reflink>]; Plant et al., [<reflink idref="bib142" id="ref198">142</reflink>]) or even negative (the labour-in-vain effect, Koriat et al., [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref199">100</reflink>]; Nelson &amp; Leonesio, [<reflink idref="bib130" id="ref200">130</reflink>]; Undorf &amp; Ackerman, [<reflink idref="bib175" id="ref201">175</reflink>]). This provides suggestions for future attempts to parse the mediating factors in the motivation → achievement link in reciprocal relations between these two constructs. It is most fruitful to measure subjective and objective measures of quantity and quality of learning (and use triangulation of methods, as strongly suggested by Scheiter et al., [<reflink idref="bib155" id="ref202">155</reflink>]) and compare their effects on academic achievement.</p> <p>Irrespective of what operationalization is chosen, it is important to note that it is not trivial to evaluate and conceptualize effort (see extensive discussions in Baars et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref203">6</reflink>]; Scheiter et al., [<reflink idref="bib155" id="ref204">155</reflink>]). Is effort the allocation of cognitive control, i.e., mental effort (Kool &amp; Botvinick, [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref205">99</reflink>]), or the intention to think deeply, regardless of the amount of time spent (Haynes et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref206">80</reflink>]), or a preference for thinking hard (Beck, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref207">9</reflink>]), a decision process rather than a capacity or resource that is physically limited (Gendolla &amp; Richter, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref208">64</reflink>])? Yet, only by measuring regulatory processes that mediate the motivation → achievement pathway, we can make progress in understanding the underlying mechanism of mutual influences between motivation and achievement.</p> <hd id="AN0155185957-12">Mutualistic Perspective and the Network Approach</hd> <p>Next, studies have typically investigated relations between one or a small number of motivation constructs (e.g., ASC and interest, Walgermo et al., [<reflink idref="bib186" id="ref209">186</reflink>]). The discussion above and Fig. 1 show that multiple motivation constructs are linked to academic achievement, which may also all be mutually related. Like many topics in psychology, there is a huge overlap in terms and variables in the literature on motivation and achievement; the same construct may have different names, or different constructs go under the same name (this is known as Jingle-Jangle fallacies; e.g., Marsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref210">113</reflink>]). One possible solution to the Jingle-Jangle fallacies with regard to motivation was proposed by Marsh et al. ([<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref211">113</reflink>]), who presented a factor model with two higher-order factors (dubbed <emph>learning</emph> and <emph>performance</emph>) that explained relations between motivation constructs. In this approach, assumptions on the number of factors and factor structure are necessary.</p> <p>The network approach is different; it does not assume an a priori structure of motivation factors. Instead, it uses the (bidirectional) partial correlations between variables in empirical data and in doing so clusters of variables which can be interpreted as constructs may emerge. The idea of a network of mutual relations to model psychological constructs was introduced by van der Maas and colleagues (van der Maas et al., [<reflink idref="bib180" id="ref212">180</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib181" id="ref213">181</reflink>]) as an explanation for the positive correlations (the positive manifold) between intelligence sub-test scores. This led to a productive area of research with applications in many areas of psychology (Dalege et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref214">41</reflink>]; Robinaugh et al., [<reflink idref="bib149" id="ref215">149</reflink>]; Sachisthal et al., [<reflink idref="bib151" id="ref216">151</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib152" id="ref217">152</reflink>]; Zwicker et al., [<reflink idref="bib196" id="ref218">196</reflink>]). The general hypothesis in psychological network models is that correlations between observed behaviors, such as cognitive functions, psychopathological symptoms, and attitudes (or, <emph>motivation constructs</emph>), are not due to unobserved common causes, but to a network of interacting psychological, social, and/or biological factors. These observed behaviors are the nodes in the network and the partial correlations are the edges.</p> <p>An example of how such a network approach can be applied to the area of motivation can be found in a study of interest in science (Sachisthal et al., [<reflink idref="bib151" id="ref219">151</reflink>]). This study included measures of students' value of science, their science engagement, and achievement. The correlations between these measures were modeled as a network, within which clusters of variables emerged. These can be seen as empirically derived constructs, replacing the at times arbitrary theoretical separation between (motivation) constructs. Given that in motivation research many constructs with considerable overlap exist (Anderman, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref220">2</reflink>]; Hattie et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref221">79</reflink>]), such empirically derived concepts may prove especially relevant.</p> <p>Within this network, variables with the strongest direct relationships can be identified. A positive change in a central variable should lead to a positive change throughout the network and these central variables may differ between contexts. For example, enjoyment emerged as the central node in the network of Dutch students, whereas engagement behaviors emerged as central in the network of Colombian students and therefore different approaches for increasing science interest are advised for the two countries (Sachisthal et al., [<reflink idref="bib151" id="ref222">151</reflink>]). Central variables may be efficient intervention targets as interventions informed by network analyses have been shown to be highly effective as these central variables were later shown to be predictive of subsequent behaviors (e.g., Sachisthal et al., [<reflink idref="bib152" id="ref223">152</reflink>]). Moreover, further support for this assumption comes from a recent study by Zwicker et al. ([<reflink idref="bib196" id="ref224">196</reflink>]) who identified guilt as the central node in the network of attitude and environmental behaviors. They then successfully manipulated guilt which increased willingness to engage in such behaviors.</p> <p>In sum, these works exemplify how network approaches can be used (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref225">1</reflink>) to model distinctive but highly related motivation and achievement constructs simultaneously and map their relations and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref226">2</reflink>) to derive hypotheses about which included constructs may be efficient targets for interventions (see Borsboom, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref227">16</reflink>], for an overview). Moreover, the fact that network analyses found different central variables in different populations also showcases how such an approach can flexibly capture interactions between motivation factors in real life. Last but not least, at a more abstract level, a mutualistic network approach can potentially solve the question of the <emph>mechanisms</emph> of the impact of motivation on achievement (also raised in Hattie et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref228">79</reflink>] as an important avenue for future research). Specifically, how clusters of motivation constructs, behavior, and achievement interact with one another can be modeled, and how reciprocal relations between them arise over time. This can only be achieved when multiple motivation constructs are measured in one single study (as argued above in section "Multiple motivation constructs").</p> <hd id="AN0155185957-13">Time Scale of the Interactions (Short vs. Long Cycle)</hd> <p>Another gap in the literature that we identified is that much research on the reciprocity between motivation and achievement has been done with data collected at large time intervals, which reflect changes that happen over months or years (e.g., Harackiewicz et al., [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref229">77</reflink>]; Marsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref230">114</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref231">115</reflink>]; Nuutila et al., [<reflink idref="bib136" id="ref232">136</reflink>]). For example, it is common for studies to include data collected per academic semester or year (e.g., Gottfried et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref233">65</reflink>]); sometimes, other time intervals have been used, such as weeks (e.g., Yeager et al., [<reflink idref="bib193" id="ref234">193</reflink>]). However, theories of motivation such as self-determination theory or expectancy-value theory are not formulated with an explicit time scale, and the interactions they describe seem framed in terms that suggest that the effects of motivation constructs happen without delays (i.e., on a time scale of seconds). Recent accounts of motivation are situated ones, which also call attention to fine-grained, moment-to-moment fluctuations that occur during learning engagement (Schunk &amp; DiBenedetto, [<reflink idref="bib161" id="ref235">161</reflink>]). This raises the question how such fast dynamics can be captured if constructs are measured with large time lags in between.</p> <p>It is possible that there are interactions between motivation and achievement at both short and long timescales, and that these are qualitatively different. We will refer to these hypothetical interactions at different time scales as short (or fast) and long (or slow) cycles between motivation and achievement. Some constructs may change in slower cycles (e.g., achievement goal orientation, mindset, academic self-concept) than others (e.g., autonomy, or even faster: emotions). In research focusing on interest and achievement emotions, for instance, a stable, so-called trait level (e.g., individual interest) is often distinguished from a shorter, task-dependent state level (e.g., situational interest) (see Hidi &amp; Renninger, [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref236">84</reflink>]; Renninger &amp; Hidi, [<reflink idref="bib146" id="ref237">146</reflink>] for interest; Pekrun, [<reflink idref="bib139" id="ref238">139</reflink>] for achievement emotions). Nesselroade's ([<reflink idref="bib131" id="ref239">131</reflink>]) model of within-person psychological change also distinguishes between state and trait. The former is rapid and potentially more easily reversed than the latter. Developmental processes are thought to underlie trait constructs, for instance suggesting that the repeated experience of a positive state (i.e., enjoyment) will lead to a positive trait value. While it has been suggested that reciprocal relations play a more central role on the trait level—e.g., explaining the stronger relations between emotion antecedents and emotions (Bieg et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref240">14</reflink>]), studies investigating reciprocal relations are still missing at a state (or task) level<emph>.</emph> Furthermore, the difference between slow and fast change is also more salient for certain constructs than for others. For example, in one rare study where the within-task changes in multiple motivation constructs was studied, researchers found that while students' self-efficacy generally grew throughout the progress of a task, interest did not (Niemivirta &amp; Tapola, [<reflink idref="bib132" id="ref241">132</reflink>]). This suggests that when studies do not consider fast vs. long cycles of constructs, the effects of a faster changing variable on a slowly changing variable can be missed.</p> <p>The remedy to these problems is to consider using data collected at either diverse time intervals or with theoretically informed time intervals to capture the ebbs and flows of the relations between constructs over time and their corresponding short and long cycles (Duff et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref242">48</reflink>]; McNeish &amp; Hamaker, [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref243">119</reflink>]). In addition, special attention should be paid to "short cycles"—especially since fast-changing constructs may be more effective targets for interventions. Intensive longitudinal designs can help uncover potential "real-time" causal variance attributable to a construct that would be missed when it is measured at relatively lengthy intervals such as one academic semester or year (McNeish &amp; Hamaker, [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref244">119</reflink>]). This may also help when developmental trajectories are characterized by non-linear trends that cannot be captured by low-frequent measurements (McNeish &amp; Hamaker, [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref245">119</reflink>]). A deliberate choice of time intervals and the use of non-questionnaire measures will also be helpful in this respect (see section "Alternatives to self-reports" below).</p> <p>A related but distinguishable issue is the stability of the reciprocal relation between motivation and achievement. Whether or not reciprocal effects of motivation and achievement are stable across school careers is a question with significant theoretical and practical consequences (Marsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref246">116</reflink>]). Two recent studies found motivation declines to be associated with particular academic stages, for example some constructs such as achievement goal orientation specifically dropped in the transition to secondary school (Scherrer et al., [<reflink idref="bib158" id="ref247">158</reflink>]). The Scherrer et al. ([<reflink idref="bib158" id="ref248">158</reflink>]) data are however among the first longitudinal attempts that can reveal how such declines could potentially impact the reciprocity between motivation and achievement. Theoretically, one could assume that the impact of motivation on achievement is low early in a new environment (e.g., a school transition) where learners experience considerable uncertainty regarding their competence and academic standing (Eccles et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref249">53</reflink>]; Valentine et al., [<reflink idref="bib178" id="ref250">178</reflink>]). When the learning environment is stable, the impact of achievement on subsequent motivation might be more substantial. Some support for such a pattern is provided in Scherrer et al. ([<reflink idref="bib158" id="ref251">158</reflink>]) who found the reciprocal effects only in later time points and not in earlier time points after transition into secondary school. However, these studies were not designed specifically to test the transition vs. non-transition contrast, prompting the need for subsequent longitudinal studies that focus on the effect of school transition (to our knowledge, Rudolph et al., [<reflink idref="bib150" id="ref252">150</reflink>] is among the first but only has two waves of data).</p> <hd id="AN0155185957-14">Methodological Challenges</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0155185957-15">Causality</hd> <p>When extant research finds the relationships between motivation and achievement, the interpretation with regards to <emph>causal relations</emph> remains difficult due to the lack of experimental manipulation (Granger, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref253">69</reflink>]; Holland, [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref254">87</reflink>]; Marsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref255">116</reflink>]; Mega et al., [<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref256">120</reflink>]). In almost every study investigating reciprocal motivation and achievement relations, the need for experimental designs in which either motivation or achievement is manipulated is raised as a suggestion for future research (Marsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref257">115</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref258">116</reflink>]; Mega et al., [<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref259">120</reflink>]; Pinxten et al., [<reflink idref="bib141" id="ref260">141</reflink>]). The term "effect" in many existing studies is used only in "conventional statistical sense and standard path analytic terminology, as representing a relation that is not necessarily causal" (Marsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref261">116</reflink>], p. 268).</p> <p>Research that aims to establish causality in the reciprocal relationship between motivation and achievement would need to meet three preconditions. The first precondition of causality is <emph>order</emph>, that is "x must precede y temporally" (Antonakis et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref262">3</reflink>], p. 1087). Causality of reciprocal effects requires both orders (x precedes y, y precedes x), as well as alternations of x and y (x precedes y, which is again followed by x). The pale blue (with solid outline) squares in Fig. 2 show this alteration of measurements of motivation and achievement. The top pale blue rectangle starts with motivation, whereas the bottom starts with achievement. The second precondition is <emph>correlation</emph>: "x must be reliably correlated with y (beyond chance)" (Antonakis et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref263">3</reflink>], p. 1087).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Representation of three types of study designs that can investigate the relationships between motivation and academic achievement. (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref264">1</reflink>) The gray box shows that to establish that motivation causes academic achievement (top) or vice versa (bottom), experimental manipulation is needed, intervening on the predictor at time point 1, which influences the outcome at time point 2 and so on. The straight thin arrows are the cross-lagged relations and the curved arrows the autoregressive relations. (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref265">2</reflink>) The light blue boxes (top and bottom) illustrate the types of design where reciprocity but not necessary causal effects between motivation and achievement can be established. (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref266">3</reflink>) The green boxes (top and bottom) show the type of design that can investigate both reciprocity and causality between motivation and achievement (i.e., a study where experimental manipulation is included and reciprocal relationships are measured). t time-point, M motivation, A achievement</p> <p>Several studies with high quality and quantity of longitudinal data meet these two pre-conditions (e.g., Arens et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref267">4</reflink>]; Bossaert et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref268">17</reflink>]; Chamorro-Premuzic et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref269">28</reflink>]; Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref270">30</reflink>]; Collie et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref271">34</reflink>]; Dicke et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref272">46</reflink>]; Grygiel et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref273">72</reflink>]; Hebbecker et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref274">81</reflink>]; Höft &amp; Bernholt, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref275">86</reflink>]; Marsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref276">115</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref277">116</reflink>]; Miyamoto et al., [<reflink idref="bib122" id="ref278">122</reflink>]). In these studies, autoregressive paths (the curved arrows in Fig. 2, which go from measurement of a variable at one time point to the measurement of the same variable at the next time point) and cross-lagged paths (the straight arrows in Fig. 2, which go from measurement of a variable at one time point to the measurement of <emph>a different</emph> variable at a later time point) are found. In other words, autoregressive paths represent the direct effects of variables on themselves over time and cross-lagged paths the direct effects of two variables on each other over time. Such cross-lagged paths show the reciprocity between the variables but not necessarily causality in these relations (Usami et al., [<reflink idref="bib176" id="ref279">176</reflink>]). Correlation between different variables, measured at different time points, is a necessary but not sufficient requirement of causality in mutual relations. Establishing causality of reciprocal effects requires the experimental manipulation of at least one of the two variables.</p> <p>Importantly, to our knowledge, no studies of the mutual relations between motivation and achievement also satisfy the third precondition of causality, that is the <emph>manipulation</emph> of x has an effect on y at a <emph>later</emph> time point, followed by (a) repeated measure(s) of x (and y) (Antonakis et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref280">3</reflink>]). In Fig. 2, manipulation is indicated by the thick arrow. In the upper panel of Fig. 2, the manipulation of motivation affects achievement in the gray (with dash outline) part of the figure. If the manipulation is followed by an alteration of the variables with cross-relations, the findings would support causality of motivation in reciprocal relations between motivation and achievement. We searched for such studies in meta-analyses of interventions (Harackiewicz et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref281">78</reflink>]; Lazowski &amp; Hulleman, [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref282">105</reflink>]; Sisk et al., [<reflink idref="bib167" id="ref283">167</reflink>]), in the latest meta-analysis of longitudinal studies (Huang, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref284">89</reflink>]) and Scharmer ([<reflink idref="bib154" id="ref285">154</reflink>]). We encountered two studies that contained both an experimental manipulation of a motivation construct and subsequent multiple, alternate measurements of motivation and performance. Cohen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref286">33</reflink>]) found that structured writing assignments to prompt African American students to reflect on their personal values (i.e., self-affirmation interventions) resulted in improved academic achievement (GPA), as well as self-perception and an increased rate of remediation, in the following school year for low-achieving African Americans. Yeager et al. ([<reflink idref="bib194" id="ref287">194</reflink>]), in a large-scale mindset intervention, also had more than one wave of manipulated motivation and measurement of achievement. Although the authors discuss the role of a recursive process Yeager &amp; Walton, [<reflink idref="bib192" id="ref288">192</reflink>]), neither of these interventions modeled reciprocal effects between motivation and performance (Cohen et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref289">33</reflink>]; Yeager et al., [<reflink idref="bib194" id="ref290">194</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the lower panel of Fig. 2, the arrow indicates manipulation of achievement. A manipulation of achievement that affects motivation, which is again cross-related to achievement, would support a causal effect of achievement in reciprocal relations between achievement and motivation. However, it is hard to manipulate achievement independently from motivation. For example, manipulations of instruction, modeling, practice, and self-correction may all affect achievement, but they may do so partly by making the material more appealing, raising motivation at the same time or before achievement is raised. New manipulations are needed that raise, for example, perceived performance without raising performance per se, as a way to circumvent such issues. For causal inferences, experiments would ideally include (double-blinded) random assignment, which is possible in the lab but poses important practical problems in the classroom (cf. Savi et al., [<reflink idref="bib153" id="ref291">153</reflink>]). In sum, future research with the types of studies that can investigate both reciprocity and causality between motivation and achievement would be highly valuable.</p> <hd id="AN0155185957-16">Choice of Appropriate Statistical Models</hd> <p>Although the existence of the reciprocal relationship between motivation and performance is generally agreed upon, there are also empirical works that fail to establish such a relationship (Fraine et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref292">58</reflink>]) or cast doubts on the robustness of the reciprocal effects (Burns et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref293">24</reflink>]; Ehm et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref294">54</reflink>]). Such studies most importantly also point out that the choice of sophisticated statistical models to investigate such relationships can have implications for the conclusion drawn (e.g., Burns et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref295">24</reflink>]; Ehm et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref296">54</reflink>]). Ehm et al. ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref297">54</reflink>]) specifically found that although a cross-lagged panel model (CLPM) supported reciprocal motivation-achievement relations, other models did not—such as the random-intercept CLPM, which Hamaker et al. ([<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref298">75</reflink>]) showed to be more effective than CLPM in explicitly modeling within- and between-individual changes across time. In addition, as Usami et al. ([<reflink idref="bib176" id="ref299">176</reflink>])—in their comprehensive unified framework of longitudinal models—demonstrated, it is important to identify the existence of third time-varying or time invariant variables (such as stable traits) that can have a causal effect on the longitudinal relationship but are yet accounted for in a model. Substantial knowledge about such confounders will help researchers select the correct statistical model. Again, this issue is closely related to the short vs. long cycle of the constructs discussed above.</p> <hd id="AN0155185957-17">Alternatives to Self-Reports</hd> <p>Most studies investigating reciprocal relationship between motivation and achievement have measured motivation through questionnaires probing ASC (e.g., the Academic Self-Description Questionnaire by Marsh &amp; O'Neill, [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref300">111</reflink>]). Despite their evident psychometric benefits, self-reports (including questionnaires) of motivation suffer from many inherent caveats. Fulmer and Frijters ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref301">61</reflink>]) list several that are relevant. First of all, questionnaires are subjective and rely on the assumption that motives are consciously accessible, declarative, and communicable to other people, while as discussed above, motivation arises from partially inaccessible and non-declarative cognition and emotions. Students may also differ in their capacity to reliably answer the questions (e.g., consider alexithymia—a psychological trait that is characterized by difficulties with verbalization of one's own emotions and psychological introspection, Lumley et al., [<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref302">107</reflink>]). Second, the lack of rigor in the conceptualization of motivation constructs often becomes apparent when using questionnaires (we discuss concrete issues related to ASC in the Different Motivation Constructs section). This is closely related to the Jingle-Jangle Fallacies discussed in Marsh et al. ([<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref303">113</reflink>], p. 192). Third, questionnaires might not measure reliably motivation constructs that are not trait-like and subject to temporal and situational fluctuations (e.g., situational interest) (also see our discussion of this point in Time scale of the relations section above). In practice, self-reports cannot be sampled with high frequency during learning (see process-oriented measures below). Fourth, questionnaires are problematic from a developmental perspective because, across age groups, there might be varying factor structures in empirical data. Furthermore, some children may be too young to process some motivation constructs. Finally, self-reports are sensitive to demand characteristics and a tendency to give socially desirable answers (e.g. students who are familiar with the implicit theory of intelligence might tend to report that they endorse a growth mindset, Lüftenegger &amp; Chen, [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref304">106</reflink>]).</p> <p>Most recent discussions of motivation-achievement interactions emphasize the need for alternative methods to self-report questionnaires. These alternatives include experience sampling, daily diaries, think-aloud protocols, observations, and structured interviews (Eccles &amp; Wigfield, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref305">52</reflink>]). These alternatives have their strengths, but some limitations remain, such as the subjective nature of these measures and a possible high demand on research participants' cognitive resources when a large number of measures are administered during a session. In addition, some demand frequent small breaks during a task to report internal states, which may interfere with the flow of the task.</p> <p>Several alternative methods are available to observe and measure motivation or engagement "online" <emph>during</emph> learning, for example by using frequent choices of learners or video observations (Järvenoja et al., [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref306">93</reflink>]). With the development of new technologies, it is now also possible to collect such data longitudinally on a large scale. For example, MathGarden, an online math learning tool, provides access to math learning data of thousands of students. Motivation is indexed by the frequency and length of voluntary, self-initiated practice, and can be linked to learning and performance (Hofman et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref307">85</reflink>]). Other promising process-oriented measures are eye-tracking and facial emotional expressions (D'Mello et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref308">40</reflink>]; Grafsgaard et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref309">67</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref310">66</reflink>]; Nye et al., [<reflink idref="bib137" id="ref311">137</reflink>]; van Amelsvoort &amp; Krahmer, [<reflink idref="bib179" id="ref312">179</reflink>]).</p> <p>Another process-oriented approach uses physiology for high-frequency and non-interfering measures of motivational states. We will briefly discuss the use of autonomic nervous system (ANS) and central nervous system (CNS) measures. ANS techniques can be used to measure <emph>arousal</emph>, which is defined as higher activation of the sympathetic relative to the parasympathetic system. Motivated and effortful behavior is accompanied by increased arousal, and thus ANS techniques can provide an index of motivation. Popular techniques are electrodermal activity (EDA), electrocardiograms (ECG), and impedance cardiography (ICG). Sympathetic arousal measured with EDA has been associated with emotion, cognition, and attention (Critchley, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref313">36</reflink>]). Sympathetic arousal can also be measured with pre-ejection period (Tavakolian, [<reflink idref="bib172" id="ref314">172</reflink>])—which is the time in between "the electrical depolarization of the left ventricle and the beginning of the ventricular ejection" (Lanfranchi et al., [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref315">103</reflink>], p. 145). One shared challenge with EDA and ECG is that arousal is a "fuzzy" construct, meaning many things, yet nothing specific (Mendes, [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref316">121</reflink>]). A common factor that elicits EDA is <emph>subjective salience</emph> or <emph>motivational importance</emph>. Pre-ejection period is often used as an index for <emph>effort mobilization</emph> in studies investigating motivational intensity theory (Brehm &amp; Self, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref317">18</reflink>]). Suppression of parasympathetic activity, which can be measured as reduction in high frequency heart rate variability, has been associated with effortful control (Spangler &amp; Friedman, [<reflink idref="bib170" id="ref318">170</reflink>]) and emotion regulation (Beauchaine, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref319">8</reflink>]), but a recent meta-analysis supports a more general role in top-down <emph>self-regulation</emph> (Holzman &amp; Bridgett, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref320">88</reflink>]).</p> <p>A CNS measure of motivational states can be provided by electroencephalography (EEG). Higher <emph>mental effort/workload</emph> has been associated with attenuated parietal alpha activity (Brouwer et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref321">19</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref322">20</reflink>]; Fink et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref323">56</reflink>]), higher frontal theta activity (Cavanagh &amp; Frank, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref324">27</reflink>]; Klimesch, [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref325">97</reflink>]), and a higher theta/alpha ratio. Another useful EEG index of motivation is asymmetrical frontal activity, which has been proposed to index <emph>motivational direction</emph>. Approach and avoidance motivation are respectively related to greater left and right frontal activity (Kelley et al., [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref326">94</reflink>]).</p> <p>It should be noted that none of these process-oriented measures has currently been established as reliable enough to replace verbal reports. A standard conclusion is that "more research is needed" (Holzman &amp; Bridgett, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref327">88</reflink>]). A constructive way forward, which Fulmer and Frijters ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref328">61</reflink>]) and Scheiter et al. ([<reflink idref="bib155" id="ref329">155</reflink>]) strongly advocate, is to triangulate multiple methods, including self-reported and process-oriented measures. Given that physiological measures are relatively new, triangulation can help establish their reliability and validity. For example, EEG could be measured along with behavioral process-oriented task measures of effort. This allows testing whether fluctuations in theta and alpha activities are due to subjective effort mobilization and not due to other processes such as emotional arousal. Such triangulation studies can point the way to reliable online measures of motivation that do not rely exclusively on self-reports.</p> <hd id="AN0155185957-18">Measuring Achievement</hd> <p>While achievement is a less-fraught construct than motivation, it still presents its own challenges. First, achievement is nearly always bound to a specific domain, for example mathematics (Arens et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref330">4</reflink>]) or reading skill (Ehm et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref331">54</reflink>]; Sewasew &amp; Koester, [<reflink idref="bib164" id="ref332">164</reflink>]). It is unclear whether findings generalize from one domain to others. It is possible that there are quantitative or even qualitative differences between domains in how motivation and achievement interact, for example as a function of the feeling of flow that is or is not associated with performance within the domain.</p> <p>A second aspect of achievement that may affect results is the type of measurement used. Achievement can be measured using standardized tests and grades in schools (Arens et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref333">4</reflink>]; Marsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref334">115</reflink>]), but for example also through teacher or self-assessment (Chamorro-Premuzic et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref335">28</reflink>]). These tend to vary substantially in reliability and validity and yield different results (e.g., stronger reciprocity for school grades than for test scores; Marsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref336">115</reflink>]). Moreover, in longitudinal studies, it is often difficult to assess whether performance at different moments in time truly reflects the same skill. For example, studies of reading skill may assess basic letter decoding skills in a first wave, and complex reading comprehension in the last (Sewasew &amp; Schroeders, [<reflink idref="bib165" id="ref337">165</reflink>]). Such changes in tested skills are likely to lead to a lower stability of scores, and skew estimates of change over time. This consideration would speak for designs (discussed above) with shorter periods between measurement waves, where the same measures can be used in different waves.</p> <p>A third aspect of achievement which may be important is that achievement can be construed as mastery of skills, which usually grows over time, or as performance relative to peers, which by definition cannot grow for all students. Studies typically use raw test scores as a dependent measure to assess this (Huang, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref338">89</reflink>]; Scharmer, [<reflink idref="bib154" id="ref339">154</reflink>]), which reflect mastery of skills. What is communicated to students, on the other hand, tends to be performance relative to peers (e.g., rankings or grades, which tend to be age-normed either explicitly or implicitly). This implies that perceived performance (see Fig. 1) will be based on relative performance, and not on the absolute achievement that researchers tend to study.</p> <hd id="AN0155185957-19">Scope of the Theories and Generalizability of Findings</hd> <p>Studies investigating motivation-achievement interactions have often studied the development of these processes separately during childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood. It is therefore unclear whether results can be generalized across developmental stages. Furthermore, as in many subfields of psychology, the majority of research in this area has been conducted in Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) societies (Henrich et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref340">82</reflink>]), where, for example, rates of schooling are much higher than other places (e.g. the Global South). Here, we outline considerations of generalizability across developmental stages and ethnic and sociocultural settings.</p> <hd id="AN0155185957-20">Generalization Across Developmental Stages</hd> <p>Childhood and adolescent development is characterized by rather different trajectories for academic achievement (with a general pattern of improvement with age) than for academic motivation (with a general pattern of decrease during adolescence, as well as diversification in sources of motivation) (Scherrer et al., [<reflink idref="bib158" id="ref341">158</reflink>]; Scherrer &amp; Preckel, [<reflink idref="bib157" id="ref342">157</reflink>]). As a result, we can speculate that the reciprocal relationships between motivation and achievement will change with age. Below, we first highlight findings on changes in motivation across development, and next describe the consequences of developmental differences on reciprocal relations between motivation and achievement, as a function of age, developmental, and academic stages (such as puberty or school grade).</p> <p>The way in which value guides goal pursuit transforms profoundly from childhood to adolescence to adulthood (Davidow et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref343">42</reflink>]), and is reflected in changes in reward sensitivity and cognitive control. At the individual level, motivational beliefs related to competence, control and agency, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and subjective task value undergo significant changes throughout the lifespan (Wigfield et al., [<reflink idref="bib190" id="ref344">190</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib191" id="ref345">191</reflink>]). Social cognitive accounts often postulate that the development of more sophisticated cognitive capacities with age allows adolescents to improve performance but also to be more aware of their own abilities and those of their peers (Dweck, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref346">49</reflink>], Scherrer and Preckel, [<reflink idref="bib157" id="ref347">157</reflink>]). As children go through school, previously held optimistic beliefs on competency become more realistic or even pessimistic (Fredricks &amp; Eccles, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref348">59</reflink>]; Jacobs et al., [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref349">91</reflink>]; Scherrer &amp; Preckel, [<reflink idref="bib157" id="ref350">157</reflink>]; Watt, [<reflink idref="bib187" id="ref351">187</reflink>]). A meta-analysis by Scherrer and Preckel ([<reflink idref="bib157" id="ref352">157</reflink>]) found a small but significant overall decrease in several motivation constructs including academic self-concept, intrinsic motivation, mastery, and performance-approach achievement goals over the course of elementary and secondary school. However, for several other constructs, including self-esteem, academic self-efficacy, and performance-avoidance achievement goals, there was no consistent developmental trend across empirical studies. Overall, this heterogeneity in developmental patterns of various motivation constructs suggests that the reciprocal interactions with achievement may also follow different trajectories across development and still need to be investigated.</p> <p>Beyond the individual level, social influences on learning and motivation within the family, peer, and school contexts (see Fig. 1) also play a significant role in the changes in motivation and achievement (Nolen &amp; Ward, [<reflink idref="bib135" id="ref353">135</reflink>]; Wigfield et al., [<reflink idref="bib190" id="ref354">190</reflink>]). Sensitivity to social context continues to develop through childhood and adolescence, transforming through the different school stages (Ladd et al., [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref355">102</reflink>]). Broadly speaking, motivation for academic activities decreases between childhood and adolescence, and motivation reorients toward social and novel situations (Crone &amp; Dahl, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref356">37</reflink>]). According to the stage-environment fit account, the decline in academic motivation in adolescents is driven by a mismatch between their newly developed needs and their social settings (Scherrer et al., [<reflink idref="bib158" id="ref357">158</reflink>]; Scherrer &amp; Preckel, [<reflink idref="bib157" id="ref358">157</reflink>]). Specifically, the transition to middle and high schools is usually accompanied by changes in peer relationships, friendship, and teacher-student relationships, an increase in normative and performance-focused evaluation and a decrease in perceived autonomy. Adolescence is especially characterized by heightened social influences on motivation (Casey, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref359">26</reflink>]): social interactions become increasingly important and peer affiliation motivation peaks (Brown &amp; Larson, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref360">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>Indeed, peer relationships show a stronger influence on academic self-concept for seventh graders, compared to fifth graders (Molloy et al., [<reflink idref="bib126" id="ref361">126</reflink>]). As children transition into middle school, there is increased competition for grades and typically a larger pool of peers that serve as a reference group (Molloy et al., [<reflink idref="bib126" id="ref362">126</reflink>]). During adolescence, same-aged peers in school can motivate academic achievement to a larger extent, and a stronger focus on performance rather than mastery goals is sometimes empirically observed (Maehr &amp; Zusho, [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref363">108</reflink>], but see Scherrer et al., [<reflink idref="bib158" id="ref364">158</reflink>]; Scherrer &amp; Preckel, [<reflink idref="bib157" id="ref365">157</reflink>] where meta-analytic findings point to declines in both mastery and performance goals).</p> <p>In sum, individual developmental changes in self-concept, self-regulation, social influence, and the values attributed to certain academic goals suggest that reciprocal motivation-achievement relations from one age group cannot be readily generalized to other ages (Marsh &amp; Martin, [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref366">110</reflink>]). Qualitative and quantitative differences in the reciprocal relationship between motivation and achievement thus seem plausible, but the lack of developmentally appropriate measures complicates comparisons across different stages (Fulmer &amp; Frijters, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref367">61</reflink>]). Populations of different ages have distinct motivation factor structures (Rao &amp; Sachs, [<reflink idref="bib145" id="ref368">145</reflink>]) and young children do not yet have the cognitive and memory capacity to process some motivation constructs and contextual references (Fulmer &amp; Frijters, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref369">61</reflink>]).</p> <p>Taken together, it is critical to understand how changes in motivation interact with changes in abilities, and affect behavior across different age groups and school career. The literature would greatly benefit from an integration of research across a broader age range, and identifying continuities and discontinuities in the reciprocal relationship between motivation and performance across development. One way to do this is to leverage accelerated longitudinal designs, with multiple measurements of cohorts with different starting ages and differentiation between multiple motivation constructs (Guay et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref370">73</reflink>]; Marsh &amp; Martin, [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref371">110</reflink>]; Scherrer &amp; Preckel, [<reflink idref="bib157" id="ref372">157</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0155185957-21">Generalization Across Sociocultural Settings</hd> <p>The reciprocal relationship between motivation and achievement may also take different shapes across contexts, as students belong to different ethnic, gender, socioeconomic (SES), and cultural groups. However, the majority of current research on the reciprocal relations between motivation and academic achievement has suffered from what can be considered a sampling bias problem (Pollet &amp; Saxton, [<reflink idref="bib143" id="ref373">143</reflink>]), i.e., conducted using homogenous samples in terms of ethnicity (Marsh &amp; Martin, [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref374">110</reflink>]) and cultural background (Henrich et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref375">82</reflink>]). In the meta-analysis by Valentine et al. ([<reflink idref="bib178" id="ref376">178</reflink>]), which showed that samples from non-Western countries tended to have larger effect sizes than those from Western countries, there were only four non-Western samples out of a total of 60 samples. In her meta-analysis of Scharmer ([<reflink idref="bib154" id="ref377">154</reflink>]), 90% of samples were collected in WEIRD countries (Australia, USA, and Western Europe, with fully half using German samples). This is problematic, given that even within WEIRD samples, motivation of students from different groups (e.g., African Americans vs. European Americans) is influenced by different factors, and may contribute differently to their academic achievement (Cohen et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref378">33</reflink>]). Ten years later, the remark of Marsh and Martin ([<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref379">110</reflink>]) thus still stands that it is premature to conclude that the reciprocal relationship between motivation and achievement is universal.</p> <p>Demonstrating this across diverse populations is important for three reasons. Firstly, even the same motivation construct might contribute differently to achievement across groups. For example, Chiu and Klassen ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref380">31</reflink>]), using PISA data and a very large and diverse sample (<emph>N</emph> participant = 88,590, <emph>N</emph> country = 34), found a positive link between mathematics self-concept and mathematics achievement, but this relationship was moderated by cross-country differences in cultural orientations (specifically, degree of egalitarianism, rigidity in gender roles, aversion to uncertainty). As mentioned above, Sachisthal et al. ([<reflink idref="bib151" id="ref381">151</reflink>]) also showed that across populations different motivation constructs are central in the network of constructs.</p> <p>Second, it is not unlikely that different groups have diverging motivation constructs. For instance, general self-concept is conceptualized differently across cultures (Becker et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref382">10</reflink>]; Taras et al., [<reflink idref="bib171" id="ref383">171</reflink>]; Vignoles et al., [<reflink idref="bib183" id="ref384">183</reflink>]). Thus, the extent to which academic self-concept contributes to a general sense of self likely differs across groups (Hansford &amp; Hattie, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref385">76</reflink>]). Chen and Wong ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref386">29</reflink>]) also found that Chinese students assigned different meanings to performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals than what is usually found in Western populations. As a result, interventions may need to target different factors in different sociocultural settings.</p> <p>Finally, there might be culture-dependent or population-specific pathways connecting the relationship between motivation and achievement. For example, culture is likely to have a strong influence on attributional processes (see extensive theoretical discussion in Graham, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref387">68</reflink>]; empirical data in Chiu &amp; Klassen, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref388">31</reflink>]) and implicit theory of intelligence (W. W. Chen &amp; Wong, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref389">29</reflink>]). Chiu and Klassen ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref390">31</reflink>]) found that calibration of mathematics self-concept (i.e., the degree to which judgments of one's competence in a domain accurately reflect actual performance) was positively related to mathematics achievement. However, this link was significantly stronger in places where the prevailing culture was more egalitarian or more tolerant of uncertainty.</p> <p>Such findings suggest differences between sociocultural contexts are not just gradual but also likely to be qualitative. This would threaten the generalizability of findings (Henrich et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref391">82</reflink>]). Note that many of the empirical studies cited in this section are non-longitudinal. Reciprocal relationships between motivation and achievement may look different from what we currently know when representative samples are included. It is thus highly relevant for future motivation research to increase ethnic, and other group diversity in their studies. This can be done by better sampling within geographical boundaries (Pollet &amp; Saxton, [<reflink idref="bib143" id="ref392">143</reflink>]) and by reaching out to under-researched territories such as in Africa, Middle East, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, and South America.</p> <p>Diversifying study populations can be tough, but is essential for new understanding of human universals and specifics in motivation. For example, collecting experimental data across countries offers alternative perspectives to experimental set-ups and findings, which subsequently prompt researchers to rethink the constructs of interest and their operationalizations (Vu et al., [<reflink idref="bib185" id="ref393">185</reflink>]). Nevertheless, there are innovative solutions to overcome practical difficulties, including collaborating with researchers who reside in places where certain specificity and universality in motivation constructs can be expected (as outlined in some of the examples above) and making use of networks of researchers such as Psychological Science Accelerator to get access to multiple laboratories and populations across the world (https://psysciacc.wordpress.com/).</p> <hd id="AN0155185957-22">Discussion and Conclusions</hd> <p>We have summarized theories of motivation and analyzed these specifically with regards to how they conceptualize reciprocal interactions between motivation and achievement. This led to a summary of pathways between motivation and achievement, depicted in Fig. 1. The common denominator between theories suggested reciprocal positive influences of motivation on achievement and vice versa, which has been supported by much previous research. We reviewed the strengths of the underlying data, but also limitations and gaps in the evidence. This led to a research agenda consisting of the following recommendations for future studies on the relationship between motivation and performance: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref394">1</reflink>) include multiple motivation constructs (on top of ASC), (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref395">2</reflink>) investigate behavioral mediators, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref396">3</reflink>) consider a network approach, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref397">4</reflink>) align frequency of measurement to expected change rate in intended constructs and include multiple time scales to better understand influences across time-scales, (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref398">5</reflink>) check whether designs meet the criteria for measuring causal, reciprocal inferences, (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref399">6</reflink>) choose an appropriate statistical model, (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref400">7</reflink>) apply alternatives to self-reports, (<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref401">8</reflink>) consider various ways of measuring achievement, and (<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref402">9</reflink>) strive for generalization of the findings to various age, ethnic, and sociocultural groups.</p> <p>One of the hardest problems to solve is the lack of studies that allow for firm causal inferences. Most studies contain sophisticated statistical analyses of longitudinal data. While impressive, the underlying data remains correlational in nature and susceptible to explanations in terms of the presence of a (time-varying or time-invariant) third variable (or variables) that is not accounted for in a model, yet does have a causal effect on the outcomes. Usami et al. ([<reflink idref="bib176" id="ref403">176</reflink>]) outline three assumptions that need to be checked when making causality inferences in the context of longitudinal designs. These are the assumptions of consistency, of positivity after controlling for confounders, and of no unobserved confounders (see full the discussion in Usami et al., [<reflink idref="bib176" id="ref404">176</reflink>]). In our view, the trickiest is the third assumption: "the relation between x and y must not be explained by other causes"(Antonakis et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref405">3</reflink>], p. 1087; Usami et al., [<reflink idref="bib176" id="ref406">176</reflink>]). There seems to be no way to conclusively rule out the presence of such confounders. Substantial knowledge about potential confounders and their characteristics, and using that knowledge to select the most appropriate cross-lagged model, is necessary.</p> <p>We argued that the strongest support for causal claims on motivation-achievement relations would be studies manipulating either motivation or achievement at one time point and studying the effects on motivation-achievement interactions across subsequent time points. Such studies do not yet exist to our knowledge. Many studies do show effects of manipulations affecting motivation thereby having an effect on achievement, but these studies have not looked at longitudinal interactions. The other pathway (i.e., achievement → motivation) has not been studied extensively, because of difficulties identifying manipulations that would directly affect achievement but not motivation.</p> <p>A way to work around this problem is to manipulate perceived achievement, instead of true achievement (our lab study, manuscript in preparation). In this experiment, participants perform a learning task that lasts an hour. Their motivation and achievement are measured at multiple consecutive time points. Halfway through the experiment, a manipulation of perceived feedback is introduced: participants receive rigged feedback that their achievement has dropped to below peer average. The causal relations between motivation and achievement can be examined because manipulated perceived achievement leads to corresponding changes in motivational beliefs, to changes in motivational behaviors and eventually, to changes in actual achievement across multiple consecutive time points. Another example of manipulation of achievement can be found in Bejjani et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref407">11</reflink>]) where they used a feedback manipulation (a competence-threatening IQ score) to study its effect on subsequent motivation and learning.</p> <p>Furthermore, we have argued that motivation can best be seen as a constellation of highly related, multidimensional constructs, and manipulations of motivation may directly or indirectly influence achievement and vice versa. An innovative method to study the motivation-achievement relationship can be a network approach, where observational and interventional data are used to estimate a causal graph. The idea is that to estimate causal relations, one variable can be manipulated at a time, and its effects on other variables can be observed. The network approach is also beneficial in the classroom context where there are many variables to take into account which cannot be independently manipulated (Yeager &amp; Walton, [<reflink idref="bib192" id="ref408">192</reflink>]).</p> <p>Our discussion of various theories of motivation in education showed how densely motivation and performance are interlinked. They can best be seen as a cycle of mutually reinforcing relations. While a cycle suggests a closed loop, we list several options for outside intervention, which are represented by the gray arrows in Fig. 1. Some of these are well-researched practical interventions, such as autonomy support and training in helpful attributions (Hulleman et al., [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref409">90</reflink>]). Others are excellent avenues for future research. For example, designing how feedback reaches the learner offers opportunities for motivation support. Research has shown how to provide negative feedback in a way that does not lower a learner's motivation (Fong et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref410">57</reflink>]), how peer comparison can be harnessed for motivation (Mumm &amp; Mutlu, [<reflink idref="bib127" id="ref411">127</reflink>]), or how feedback can be given without giving away that errors have been made (Narciss &amp; Huth, [<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref412">129</reflink>]). It is our impression that this research has so far not reached all classrooms.</p> <p>In conclusion, this view of a cycle between motivation and achievement, as shown in Fig. 1, has intuitive appeal and fits well with theories of academic motivation. However, empirical evidence for a cycle is far from complete. The research agenda we have presented contains important challenges for future research aimed at elucidating how motivation and achievement exactly interact, and whether a cycle and a network of constructs are good ways of conceptualizing these interactions. As academic motivation typically drops considerably in adolescence and may be lower for some groups (e.g., through the effects of SES, stereotype threat, and the likes), such evidence is necessary for gaining knowledge on how to best intervene in the cycle, and bring out the best in each student.</p> <hd id="AN0155185957-23">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>We would like to thank Sibel Altikulaç, Abe Hofman, and Simone Plak who participated in our Expert Workshop in Motivation-Performance Cycle in Math Learning in Amsterdam in June 2019 where we discussed ideas for this paper. We would like to thank Milene Bonte, Wouter van den Bos, Camila Bosano, and Bruce McCandliss who are members of the advisory board for the Jacobs Foundation project of which the subproject to write this manuscript is a part. We also want to thank Asmar Isilak who helped with the first database search for empirical studies on the motivation-achievement cycles in learning<bold>.</bold></p> <hd id="AN0155185957-24">Author Contribution</hd> <p>Apart from the first four authors and the last author, the rest of the authors is listed in alphabetical order.</p> <hd id="AN0155185957-25">Funding</hd> <p>This work was supported by the Jacobs Foundation Science of Learning pilot grant to Nienke van Atteveldt and Brenda R. J. Jansen [project number 2019 1329 00]. Nienke van Atteveldt was also supported by a Starting Grant from the European Research Council (ERC, grant #716736). The funders had no role in study design, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0155185957-26">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0155185957-27"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Alexander PA, Kulikowich JM, Jetton TL. The role of subject-matter knowledge and interest in the processing of linear and nonlinear texts. Review of Educational Research. 1994; 64; 2: 201-252. 10.2307/1170694</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Anderman EM. Achievement motivation theory: Balancing precision and utility. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2020; 61: 101864. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101864</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Antonakis J, Bendahan S, Jacquart P, Lalive R. On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly. 2010; 21; 6: 1086-1120. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Arens AK, Marsh HW, Pekrun R, Lichtenfeld S, Murayama K, vom Hofe R. Math self-concept, grades, and achievement test scores: Long-term reciprocal effects across five waves and three achievement tracks. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2017; 109; 5: 621-634. 10.1037/edu0000163,</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Arens AK, Schmidt I, Preckel F. Longitudinal relations among self-concept, intrinsic value, and attainment value across secondary school years in three academic domains. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2019; 111; 4: 663-684. 10.1037/edu0000313</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Baars M, Wijnia L, de Bruin A, Paas F. The relation between students' effort and monitoring judgments during learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review. 2020; 32; 4: 979-1002. 10.1007/s10648-020-09569-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Henry Holt &amp; Co.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Beauchaine TP. Respiratory sinus arrhythmia: A transdiagnostic biomarker of emotion dysregulation and psychopathology. Current Opinion in Psychology. 2015; 3: 43-47. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.01.017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Beck, R. C. (1990). Motivation. Prentice Hall.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Becker M, Vignoles VL, Owe E, Brown R, Smith PB, Easterbrook M, Herman G, de Sauvage I, Bourguignon D, Torres A, Camino L, Lemos FCS, Ferreira MC, Koller SH, González R, Carrasco D, Cadena MP, Lay S, Wang Q, Bond MH, Trujillo EV, Balanta P, Valk A, Mekonnen KH, Nizharadze G, Fülöp M, Regalia C, Manzi C, Brambilla M, Harb C, Aldhafri S, Martin M, Macapagal MEJ, Chybicka A, Gavreliuc A, Buitendach J, Gallo IS, Özgen E, Güner ÜE, Yamakoğlu N. Culture and the distinctiveness motive: Constructing identity in individualistic and collectivistic contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2012; 102; 4: 833-855. 10.1037/a0026853</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bejjani C, DePasque S, Tricomi E. Intelligence mindset shapes neural learning signals and memory. Biological Psychology. 2019; 146: 107715. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2019.06.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berridge KC. Evolving concepts of emotion and motivation. Frontiers in Psychology. 2018; 9: 1647. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01647</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Betz NE, Schifano RS. Evaluation of an intervention to increase realistic self-efficacy and interests in college women. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2000; 56; 1: 35-52. 10.1006/jvbe.1999.1690</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bieg M, Goetz T, Hubbard K. Can I master it and does it matter? An intraindividual analysis on control–value antecedents of trait and state academic emotions. Learning and Individual Differences. 2013; 28: 102-108. 10.1016/j.lindif.2013.09.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bong M, Skaalvik EM. Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How different are they really?. Educational Psychology Review. 2003; 15; 1: 1-40. 10.1023/A:1021302408382</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Borsboom D. A network theory of mental disorders. World Psychiatry. 2017; 16; 1: 5-13. 10.1002/wps.20375</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bossaert G, Doumen S, Buyse E, Verschueren K. Predicting children's academic achievement after the transition to first grade: A two-year longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 2011; 32; 2: 47-57. 10.1016/j.appdev.2010.12.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brehm JW, Self ES. The intensity of motivation. Annual Review of Psychology. 1989; 40: 109-131. 10.1146/annurev.ps.40.020189.000545</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brouwer A-M, Hogervorst MA, van Erp JBF, Heffelaar T, Zimmerman PH, Oostenveld R. Estimating workload using EEG spectral power and ERPs in the n-back task. Journal of Neural Engineering. 2012; 9; 4: 045008. 10.1088/1741-2560/9/4/045008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brouwer A-M, Hogervorst MA, Holewijn M, van Erp JBF. Evidence for effects of task difficulty but not learning on neurophysiological variables associated with effort. International Journal of Psychophysiology. 2014; 93; 2: 242-252. 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2014.05.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brown, B. B, &amp; Larson, J. (2009). Peer Relationships in Adolescence. In R. M. Lerner &amp; L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of Adolescent Psychology (Vol. 2). John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470479193.adlpsy002004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brunner M, Keller U, Dierendonck C, Reichert M, Ugen S, Fischbach A, Martin R. The structure of academic self-concepts revisited: The nested Marsh/Shavelson model. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2010; 102; 4: 964-981. 10.1037/a0019644</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burnette JL, O'Boyle EH, VanEpps EM, Pollack JM, Finkel EJ. Mind-sets matter: A meta-analytic review of implicit theories and self-regulation. Psychological Bulletin. 2013; 139; 3: 655-701. 10.1037/a0029531</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burns RA, Crisp DA, Burns RB. Re-examining the reciprocal effects model of self-concept, self-efficacy, and academic achievement in a comparison of the cross-lagged panel and random-intercept cross-lagged panel frameworks. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2020; 90; 1: 77-91. 10.1111/bjep.12265</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carver CS, White TL. Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1994; 67; 2: 319-333. 10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Casey BJ. Beyond simple models of self-control to circuit-based accounts of adolescent behavior. Annual Review of Psychology. 2015; 66; 1: 295-319. 10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015156</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cavanagh JF, Frank MJ. Frontal theta as a mechanism for cognitive control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2014; 18; 8: 414-421. 10.1016/j.tics.2014.04.012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chamorro-Premuzic T, Harlaar N, Greven CU, Plomin R. More than just IQ: A longitudinal examination of self-perceived abilities as predictors of academic performance in a large sample of UK twins. Intelligence. 2010; 38; 4: 385-392. 10.1016/j.intell.2010.05.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen WW, Wong YL. Chinese mindset: Theories of intelligence, goal orientation and academic achievement in Hong Kong students. Educational Psychology. 2015; 35; 6: 714-725. 10.1080/01443410.2014.893559</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen S-K, Yeh Y-C, Hwang F-M, Lin SSJ. The relationship between academic self-concept and achievement: A multicohort–multioccasion study. Learning and Individual Differences. 2013; 23: 172-178. 10.1016/j.lindif.2012.07.021</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chiu MM, Klassen RM. Relations of mathematics self-concept and its calibration with mathematics achievement: Cultural differences among fifteen-year-olds in 34 countries. Learning and Instruction. 2010; 20; 1: 2-17. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.11.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cleary, T. J, &amp; Zimmerman, B. J. (2012). A cyclical self-regulatory account of student engagement: Theoretical foundations and applications. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, &amp; C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 237–257). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_11.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen GL, Garcia J, Purdie-Vaughns V, Apfel N, Brzustoski P. Recursive processes in self-affirmation: Intervening to close the minority achievement gap. Science. 2009; 324; 5925: 400-403. 10.1126/science.1170769</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Collie RJ, Martin AJ, Malmberg L-E, Hall J, Ginns P. Academic buoyancy, student's achievement, and the linking role of control: A cross-lagged analysis of high school students. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2015; 85; 1: 113-130. 10.1111/bjep.12066</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Covington MV. Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: An integrative review. Annual Review of Psychology. 2000; 51; 1: 171-200. 10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.171</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Critchley HD. Review: Electrodermal responses: What happens in the brain. The Neuroscientist. 2002; 8; 2: 132-142. 10.1177/107385840200800209</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crone EA, Dahl RE. Understanding adolescence as a period of social–affective engagement and goal flexibility. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2012; 13; 9: 636-650. 10.1038/nrn3313</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Csikzentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper &amp; Row.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cury F, Fonseca DD, Zahn I, Elliot A. Implicit theories and IQ test performance: A sequential mediational analysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2008; 44; 3: 783-791. 10.1016/j.jesp.2007.07.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> D'Mello SK, Craig SD, Witherspoon A, McDaniel B, Graesser A. Automatic detection of learner's affect from conversational cues. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction. 2008; 18; 1–2: 45-80. 10.1007/s11257-007-9037-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dalege J, Borsboom D, van Harreveld F, van den Berg H, Conner M, van der Maas HLJ. Toward a formalized account of attitudes: The Causal Attitude Network (CAN) model. Psychological Review. 2016; 123; 1: 2-22. 10.1037/a0039802</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davidow JY, Insel C, Somerville LH. Adolescent development of value-guided goal pursuit. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2018; 22; 8: 725-736. 10.1016/j.tics.2018.05.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Kraker-Pauw E, Van Wesel F, Krabbendam L, Van Atteveldt N. Teacher mindsets concerning the malleability of intelligence and the appraisal of achievement in the context of feedback. Frontiers in Psychology. 2017; 8: 1594. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01594</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deci EL, Ryan RM. The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry. 2000; 11; 4: 227-268. 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dettmers S, Trautwein U, Lüdtke O. The relationship between homework time and achievement is not universal: Evidence from multilevel analyses in 40 countries. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 2009; 20; 4: 375-405. 10.1080/09243450902904601</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dicke T, Marsh HW, Parker PD, Pekrun R, Guo J, Televantou I. Effects of school-average achievement on individual self-concept and achievement: Unmasking phantom effects masquerading as true compositional effects. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2018; 110; 8: 1112-1126. 10.1037/edu0000259</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doumen S, Broeckmans J, Masui C. The role of self-study time in freshmen's achievement. Educational Psychology. 2014; 34; 3: 385-402. 10.1080/01443410.2013.785063</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duff D, Tomblin JB, Catts H. The influence of reading on vocabulary growth: A case for a Matthew effect. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 2015; 58; 3: 853-864. 10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-13-0310</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development. Psychology Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dweck CS. From needs to goals and representations: Foundations for a unified theory of motivation, personality, and development. Psychological Review. 2017; 124; 6: 689-719. 10.1037/rev0000082</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eccles JS, Wigfield A. Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology. 2002; 53; 1: 109-132. 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eccles JS, Wigfield A. From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2020; 61: 101859. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101859</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eccles JS, Wigfield A, Midgley C, Reuman D, Iver DM, Feldlaufer H. Negative effects of traditional middle schools on students' motivation. The Elementary School Journal. 1993; 93; 5: 553-574. 10.1086/461740</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ehm J-H, Hasselhorn M, Schmiedek F. Analyzing the developmental relation of academic self-concept and achievement in elementary school children: Alternative models point to different results. Developmental Psychology. 2019; 55; 11: 2336-2351. 10.1037/dev0000796</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fang J, Huang X, Zhang M, Huang F, Li Z, Yuan Q. The big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology. 2018; 9: 1569. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01569</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fink A, Grabner RH, Neuper C, Neubauer AC. EEG alpha band dissociation with increasing task demands. Cognitive Brain Research. 2005; 24; 2: 252-259. 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.02.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fong CJ, Patall EA, Vasquez AC, Stautberg S. A meta-analysis of negative feedback on intrinsic motivation. Educational Psychology Review. 2019; 31; 1: 121-162. 10.1007/s10648-018-9446-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fraine B, Damme J, Onghena P. A longitudinal analysis of gender differences in academic self-concept and language achievement: A multivariate multilevel latent growth approach. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2007; 32: 132-150. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.10.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fredricks JA, Eccles JS. Children's competence and value beliefs from childhood through adolescence: Growth trajectories in two male-sex-typed domains. Developmental Psychology. 2002; 38; 4: 519-533. 10.1037/0012-1649.38.4.519</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frijda N. The law of emotion. American Psychologist. 1988; 43; 5: 349-358. 10.1037//0003-066x.43.5.349</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fulmer SM, Frijters JC. A review of self-report and alternative approaches in the measurement of student motivation. Educational Psychology Review. 2009; 21; 3: 219-246. 10.1007/s10648-009-9107-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garon-Carrier G, Boivin M, Guay F, Kovas Y, Dionne G, Lemelin J-P, Séguin JR, Vitaro F, Tremblay RE. Intrinsic motivation and achievement in mathematics in elementary school: A longitudinal investigation of their association. Child Development. 2016; 87; 1: 165-175. 10.1111/cdev.12458</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gaspard H, Lauermann F, Rose N, Wigfield A, Eccles JS. Cross-domain trajectories of students' ability self-concepts and intrinsic values in math and language arts. Child Development. 2020; 91; 5: 1800-1818. 10.1111/cdev.13343</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gendolla GHE, Richter M. Effort mobilization when the self is involved: Some lessons from the cardiovascular system. Review of General Psychology. 2010; 14; 3: 212-226. 10.1037/a0019742</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gottfried AE, Marcoulides GA, Gottfried AW, Oliver PH. Longitudinal pathways from math intrinsic motivation and achievement to math course accomplishments and educational attainment. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness. 2013; 6; 1: 68-92. 10.1080/19345747.2012.698376</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grafsgaard, J. F, Boyer, K. E, Phillips, R, &amp; Lester, J. C. (2011). Modeling confusion: Facial expression, task, and discourse in task-oriented tutorial dialogue. In G. Biswas, S. Bull, J. Kay, &amp; A. Mitrovic (Eds.), International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (6738th ed, pp. 98–105). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21869-9_15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grafsgaard, J. F, Wiggins, J. B, Boyer, K. E, Wiebe, E. N, &amp; Lester, J. C. (2014). Predicting learning and affect from multimodal data streams in task-oriented tutorial dialogue. In J. Stamper, Z. Pardos, M. Mavrikis, &amp; B. M. McLaren (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (pp. 122–129). International Educational Data Mining Society. <ulink href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.659.7572&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf">http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.659.7572&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf</ulink>. Accessed 10 July 2020.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham S. An attributional theory of motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2020; 61: 101861. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101861</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Granger CWJ. Testing for causality: A personal viewpoint. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control. 1980; 2: 329-352. 10.1016/0165-1889(80)90069-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greene JA, Azevedo R. A theoretical review of Winne and Hadwin's model of self-regulated learning: New perspectives and directions. Review of Educational Research. 2007; 77; 3: 334-372. 10.3102/003465430303953</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grigg S, Perera HN, McIlveen P, Svetleff Z. Relations among math self efficacy, interest, intentions, and achievement: A social cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2018; 53: 73-86. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.01.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grygiel P, Modzelewski M, Pisarek J. Academic self-concept and achievement in Polish primary schools: Cross-lagged modelling and gender-specific effects. European Journal of Psychology of Education. 2017; 32; 3: 407-429. 10.1007/s10212-016-0300-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guay F, Marsh HW, Boivin M. Academic self-concept and academic achievement: Developmental perspectives on their causal ordering. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2003; 95; 1: 124-136. 10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.124</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guo J, Marsh HW, Morin AJS, Parker PD, Kaur G. Directionality of the associations of high school expectancy-value, aspirations, and attainment: A longitudinal study. American Educational Research Journal. 2015; 52; 2: 371-402. 10.3102/0002831214565786</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamaker EL, Kuiper RM, Grasman RPPP. A critique of the cross-lagged panel model. Psychological Methods. 2015; 20; 1: 102-116. 10.1037/a0038889</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hansford BC, Hattie JA. The relationship between self and achievement/performance measures. Review of Educational Research. 1982; 52; 1: 123-142. 10.3102/00346543052001123</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harackiewicz JM, Durik AM, Barron KE, Linnenbrink-Garcia L, Tauer JM. The role of achievement goals in the development of interest: Reciprocal relations between achievement goals, interest, and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2008; 100; 1: 105-122. 10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.105</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harackiewicz, J. M, Tibbetts, Y, Canning, E, &amp; Hyde, J. S. (2014). Harnessing values to promote motivation in education. In S. A. Karabenick &amp; T. C. Urdan (Eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement (18th ed, pp. 71–105). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0749-742320140000018002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hattie J, Hodis FA, Kang SHK. Theories of motivation: Integration and ways forward. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2020; 61: 101865. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101865</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haynes C, Thompson J, Licklider B, Hendrich S, Thompson K, Wiersema J. Mindset about intelligence and connections to student effort: Opportunities for learning and action. Natural Sciences Education. 2016; 45; 1: 1-10 nse2016.0004. 10.4195/nse2016.0004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hebbecker K, Förster N, Souvignier E. Reciprocal effects between reading achievement and intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2019; 23; 5: 419-436. 10.1080/10888438.2019.1598413</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henrich J, Heine SJ, Norenzayan A. The weirdest people in the world?. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2010; 33; 2–3: 61-83. 10.1017/S0140525X0999152X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hidi, S, &amp; Harackiewicz, J. M. (2001). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 151–179. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070002151.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hidi S, Renninger KA. The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist. 2006; 41; 2: 111-127. 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hofman A, Jansen B, de Mooij S, Stevenson C, van der Maas H. A solution to the measurement problem in the idiographic approach using computer adaptive practicing. Journal of Intelligence. 2018; 6; 1: 14. 10.3390/jintelligence6010014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Höft L, Bernholt S. Longitudinal couplings between interest and conceptual understanding in secondary school chemistry: An activity-based perspective. International Journal of Science Education. 2019; 41; 5: 607-627. 10.1080/09500693.2019.1571650</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holland P. Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1986; 81; 396: 945-960. 10.1080/01621459.1986.10478354</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holzman JB, Bridgett DJ. Heart rate variability indices as bio-markers of top-down self-regulatory mechanisms: A meta-analytic review. Neuroscience &amp; Biobehavioral Reviews. 2017; 74: 233-255. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.12.032</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huang C. Self-concept and academic achievement: A meta-analysis of longitudinal relations. Journal of School Psychology. 2011; 49; 5: 505-528. 10.1016/j.jsp.2011.07.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hulleman CS, Schrager SM, Bodmann SM, Harackiewicz JM. A meta-analytic review of achievement goal measures: Different labels for the same constructs or different constructs with similar labels?. Psychological Bulletin. 2010; 136; 3: 422-449. 10.1037/a0018947</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jacobs JE, Lanza S, Osgood DW, Eccles JS, Wigfield A. Changes in children's self-competence and values: Gender and domain differences across grades one through twelve. Child Development. 2002; 73; 2: 509-527. 10.1111/1467-8624.00421</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jansen BRJ, Louwerse J, Straatemeier M, Van der Ven SHG, Klinkenberg S, Van der Maas HLJ. The influence of experiencing success in math on math anxiety, perceived math competence, and math performance. Learning and Individual Differences. 2013; 24: 190-197. 10.1016/j.lindif.2012.12.014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Järvenoja H, Järvelä S, Törmänen T, Näykki P, Malmberg J, Kurki K, Mykkänen A, Isohätälä J. Capturing motivation and emotion regulation during a learning process. Frontline Learning Research. 2018; 6; 3: 85-104. 10.14786/flr.v6i3.369</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelley NJ, Hortensius R, Schutter DJLG, Harmon-Jones E. The relationship of approach/avoidance motivation and asymmetric frontal cortical activity: A review of studies manipulating frontal asymmetry. International Journal of Psychophysiology. 2017; 119: 19-30. 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2017.03.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kerdijk W, Cohen-Schotanus J, Mulder BF, Muntinghe FLH, Tio RA. Cumulative versus end-of-course assessment: Effects on self-study time and test performance. Medical Education. 2015; 49; 7: 709-716. 10.1111/medu.12756</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kleinginna PR, Kleinginna AM. A categorized list of emotion definitions, with suggestions for a consensual definition. Motivation and Emotion. 1981; 5; 4: 345-379. 10.1007/BF00992553</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klimesch W. Alpha-band oscillations, attention, and controlled access to stored information. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2012; 16; 12: 606-617. 10.1016/j.tics.2012.10.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koenka AC. Academic motivation theories revisited: An interactive dialog between motivation scholars on recent contributions, underexplored issues, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2020; 61: 101831. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101831</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kool W, Botvinick M. Mental labour. Nature Human Behaviour. 2018; 2; 12: 899-908. 10.1038/s41562-018-0401-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koriat A, Ma'ayan H, Nussinson R. The intricate relationships between monitoring and control in metacognition: Lessons for the cause-and-effect relation between subjective experience and behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2006; 135; 1: 36-69. 10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.36</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuhl, J. (1984). Volitional aspects of achievement motivation and learned helplessness: Toward a comprehensive theory of action control. In B. A. Maher &amp; W. B. Maher (Eds.), Progress in Experimental Personality Research (13th ed, pp. 99–171). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-541413-5.50007-3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ladd, G. W, Herald-Brown, S. L, &amp; Kochel, K. P. (2009). Peers and motivation. In K. R. Wenzel &amp; A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 323–348). Routledge/Taylor &amp; Francis Group.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lanfranchi, P. A, Pépin, J.-L, &amp; Somers, V. K. (2017). Cardiovascular Physiology. In Principles and Practice of Sleep Medicine (pp. 142–154.e4). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-24288-2.00014-3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lazarus RS. Hope: An emotion and a vital coping resource against despair. Social Research. 1999; 66; 2: 653-678</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lazowski RA, Hulleman CS. Motivation interventions in education: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research. 2016; 86; 2: 602-640. 10.3102/0034654315617832</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lüftenegger M, Chen JA. Conceptual issues and assessment of implicit theories. Zeitschrift für Psychologie. 2017; 225; 2: 99-106. 10.1027/2151-2604/a000286</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lumley MA, Gustavson BJ, Partridge RT, Labouvie-Vief G. Assessing alexithymia and related emotional ability constructs using multiple methods: Interrelationships among measures. Emotion. 2005; 5; 3: 329-342. 10.1037/1528-3542.5.3.329</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maehr, M. L, &amp; Zusho, A. (2009). Achievement goal theory: The past, present, and future. In K. R. Wenzel &amp; A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 77–104). Routledge/Taylor &amp; Francis Group.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marsh HW, Craven RG. Reciprocal effects of self-concept and performance from a multidimensional perspective: Beyond seductive pleasure and unidimensional perspectives. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2006; 1; 2: 133-163. 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00010.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marsh HW, Martin AJ. Academic self-concept and academic achievement: Relations and causal ordering. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2011; 81; 1: 59-77. 10.1348/000709910X503501</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marsh HW, O'Neill R. Self description questionnaire III: The construct validity of multidimensional self-concept ratings by late adolescents. Journal of Educational Measurement. 1984; 21; 2: 153-174. 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1984.tb00227.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marsh HW, Byrne BM, Yeung AS. Causal ordering of academic self-concept and achievement: Reanalysis of a pioneering study and revised recommendations. Educational Psychologist. 1999; 34; 3: 155-167. 10.1207/s15326985ep3403_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marsh HW, Craven RG, Hinkley JW, Debus RL. Evaluation of the big-two-factor theory of academic motivation orientations: An evaluation of Jingle-Jangle Fallacies. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 2003; 38; 2: 189-224. 10.1207/S15327906MBR3802_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marsh HW, Trautwein U, Lüdtke O, Köller O, Baumert J. Academic self-concept, interest, grades, and standardized test scores: Reciprocal effects models of causal ordering. Child Development. 2005; 76; 2: 397-416. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00853.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marsh HW, Pekrun R, Lichtenfeld S, Guo J, Arens AK, Murayama K. Breaking the double-edged sword of effort/trying hard: Developmental equilibrium and longitudinal relations among effort, achievement, and academic self-concept. Developmental Psychology. 2016; 52; 8: 1273-1290. 10.1037/dev0000146</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marsh HW, Pekrun R, Murayama K, Arens AK, Parker PD, Guo J, Dicke T. An integrated model of academic self-concept development: Academic self-concept, grades, test scores, and tracking over 6 years. Developmental Psychology. 2018; 54; 2: 263-280. 10.1037/dev0000393</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin AJ. Motivation and engagement across the academic life span: A developmental construct validity study of elementary school, high school, and university/college students. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2009; 69; 5: 794-824. 10.1177/0013164409332214</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Massin O. Towards a definition of efforts. Motivation Science. 2017; 3; 3: 230-259. 10.1037/mot0000066</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McNeish D, Hamaker EL. A primer on two-level dynamic structural equation models for intensive longitudinal data in Mplus. Psychological Methods. 2019; 25; 5: 610-635. 10.31234/osf.io/j56bm</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mega C, Ronconi L, De Beni R. What makes a good student? How emotions, self-regulated learning, and motivation contribute to academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2014; 106; 1: 121-131. 10.1037/a0033546</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mendes WB. Comment: Looking for affective meaning in "Multiple Arousal" theory: A comment to Picard, Fedor, and Ayzenberg. Emotion Review. 2016; 8; 1: 77-79. 10.1177/1754073914565521</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miyamoto A, Pfost M, Artelt C. Reciprocal relations between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence: A comparison between native and immigrant students in Germany: Reading Motivation and Reading Competence. Journal of Research in Reading. 2018; 41; 1: 176-196. 10.1111/1467-9817.12113</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Molden DC, Dweck CS. Finding "meaning" in psychology: A lay theories approach to self-regulation, social perception, and social development. American Psychologist. 2006; 61; 3: 192-203. 10.1037/0003-066X.61.3.192</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Möller J, Pohlmann B, Köller O, Marsh HW. A meta-analytic path analysis of the Internal/External Frame of Reference model of academic achievement and academic self-concept. Review of Educational Research. 2009; 79; 3: 1129-1167. 10.3102/0034654309337522</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Möller J, Retelsdorf J, Köller O, Marsh HW. The reciprocal Internal/External Frame of Reference model: An integration of models of relations between academic achievement and self-concept. American Educational Research Journal. 2011; 48; 6: 1315-1346. 10.3102/0002831211419649</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Molloy LE, Gest SD, Rulison KL. Peer influences on academic motivation: Exploring multiple methods of assessing youths' most "influential" peer relationships. The Journal of Early Adolescence. 2011; 31; 1: 13-40. 10.1177/0272431610384487</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mumm J, Mutlu B. Designing motivational agents: The role of praise, social comparison, and embodiment in computer feedback. Computers in Human Behavior. 2011; 27; 5: 1643-1650. 10.1016/j.chb.2011.02.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murayama K, Pekrun R, Lichtenfeld S, vom Hofe, R. Predicting long-term growth in students' mathematics achievement: The unique contributions of motivation and cognitive strategies. Child Development. 2013; 84; 4: 1475-1490. 10.1111/cdev.12036</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Narciss S, Huth K. Fostering achievement and motivation with bug-related tutoring feedback in a computer-based training for written subtraction. Learning and Instruction. 2006; 16; 4: 310-322. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.07.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nelson TO, Leonesio RJ. Allocation of self-paced study time and the "Labor-in-Vain Effect.". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 1988; 14; 4: 676-686. 10.1037/0278-7393.14.4.676</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nesselroade, J. R. (1991). Interindividual differences in intraindividual change. In L. M. Collins &amp; J. L. Horn (Eds.), Best methods for the analysis of change: Recent advances, unanswered questions, future directions (pp. 92–105). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10099-006.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Niemivirta M, Tapola A. Self-efficacy, interest, and task performance: Within-task changes, mutual relationships, and predictive effects. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogische Psychologie. 2007; 21; 3/4: 241-250. 10.1024/1010-0652.21.3.241</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Niepel C, Brunner M, Preckel F. The longitudinal interplay of students' academic self-concepts and achievements within and across domains: Replicating and extending the reciprocal internal/external frame of reference model. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2014; 106; 4: 1170-1191. 10.1037/a0036307</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Niepel C, Brunner M, Preckel F. Achievement goals, academic self-concept, and school grades in mathematics: Longitudinal reciprocal relations in above average ability secondary school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2014; 39; 4: 301-313. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.07.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nolen, S, &amp; Ward, C. (2008). Sociocultural and situative approaches to studying motivation. In In Advances in motivation and achievement (15th ed, pp. 425–460). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-7423(08)15013-0.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nuutila K, Tuominen H, Tapola A, Vainikainen M-P, Niemivirta M. Consistency, longitudinal stability, and predictions of elementary school students' task interest, success expectancy, and performance in mathematics. Learning and Instruction. 2018; 56: 73-83. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.04.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nye, B. D, Karumbaiah, S, Tokel, S. T, Core, M. G, Stratou, G, Auerbach, D, &amp; Georgila, K. (2018). Engaging with the scenario: Affect and facial patterns from a scenario-based intelligent tutoring system. In C. P. Rosé, R. Martínez-Maldonado, H. U. Hoppe, R. Luckin, M. Mavrikis, K. Porayska-Pomsta, B. McLaren, &amp; B. du Boulay (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence in Education (10947th ed, pp. 352–366). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93843-1_26.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OECD. (2016). Netherlands 2016: Foundations for the future, Reviews of National Policies for Education. OECD Publishing Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264257658-en.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pekrun R. The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review. 2006; 18; 4: 315-341. 10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pekrun R, Vogl E, Muis KR, Sinatra GM. Measuring emotions during epistemic activities: The epistemically-related emotion scales. Cognition and Emotion. 2017; 31; 6: 1268-1276. 10.1080/02699931.2016.1204989</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pinxten M, Marsh HW, De Fraine B, Van Den Noortgate W, Van Damme J. Enjoying mathematics or feeling competent in mathematics? Reciprocal effects on mathematics achievement and perceived math effort expenditure. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2014; 84; 1: 152-174. 10.1111/bjep.12028</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Plant EA, Ericsson KA, Hill L, Asberg K. Why study time does not predict grade point average across college students: Implications of deliberate practice for academic performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2005; 30; 1: 96-116. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.06.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pollet TV, Saxton TK. How diverse are the samples used in the journals 'evolution &amp; human behavior' and 'evolutionary psychology'?. Evolutionary Psychological Science. 2019; 5; 3: 357-368. 10.1007/s40806-019-00192-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Putwain DW, Becker S, Symes W, Pekrun R. Reciprocal relations between students' academic enjoyment, boredom, and achievement over time. Learning and Instruction. 2018; 54: 73-81. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.08.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rao N, Sachs J. Confirmatory factor analysis of the chinese version of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1999; 59; 6: 1016-1029. 10.1177/00131649921970206</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Renninger KA, Hidi S. Revisiting the conceptualization, measurement, and generation of interest. Educational Psychologist. 2011; 46; 3: 168-184. 10.1080/00461520.2011.587723</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Retelsdorf J, Köller O, Möller J. Reading achievement and reading self-concept – Testing the reciprocal effects model. Learning and Instruction. 2014; 29: 21-30. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.07.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robbins SB, Lauver K, Le H, Davis D, Langley R, Carlstrom A. Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 2004; 130; 2: 261-288. 10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.261</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robinaugh DJ, Hoekstra RHA, Toner ER, Borsboom D. The network approach to psychopathology: A review of the literature 2008–2018 and an agenda for future research. Psychological Medicine. 2020; 50; 3: 353-366. 10.1017/S0033291719003404</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rudolph KD, Lambert SF, Clark AG, Kurlakowsky KD. Negotiating the transition to middle school: The role of self-regulatory processes. Child Development. 2001; 72; 3: 929-946. 10.1111/1467-8624.00325</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sachisthal MSM, Jansen BRJ, Peetsma TTD, Dalege J, van der Maas H, Raijmakers MEJ. Introducing a science interest network model to reveal country differences. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2019; 111; 6: 1063-1080. 10.1037/edu0000327</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sachisthal MSM, Jansen BRJ, Dalege J, Raijmakers MEJ. Relating teenagers' science interest network characteristics to later science course enrolment: An analysis of Australian PISA 2006 and Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth data. Australian Journal of Education. 2020; 64; 3: 264-281. 10.1177/0004944120957477</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Savi AO, Ruijs NM, Maris GKJ, van der Maas HLJ. Delaying access to a problem-skipping option increases effortful practice: Application of an A/B test in large-scale online learning. Computers &amp; Education. 2018; 119: 84-94. 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.12.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scharmer, A. L. (2020). The Reciprocal relation of motivation and academic achievement in typically developing elementary and high-school students: A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies [Master thesis].[masked for double blind review].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scheiter K, Ackerman R, Hoogerheide V. Looking at mental effort appraisals through a metacognitive lens: Are they biased?. Educational Psychology Review. 2020; 32; 4: 1003-1027. 10.1007/s10648-020-09555-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scherbaum CA, Cohen-Charash Y, Kern MJ. Measuring general self-efficacy: A comparison of three measures using item response theory. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2006; 66; 6: 1047-1063. 10.1177/0013164406288171</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scherrer V, Preckel F. Development of motivational variables and self-esteem during the school career: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Review of Educational Research. 2019; 89; 2: 211-258. 10.3102/0034654318819127</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scherrer V, Preckel F, Schmidt I, Elliot AJ. Development of achievement goals and their relation to academic interest and achievement in adolescence: A review of the literature and two longitudinal studies. Developmental Psychology. 2020; 56; 4: 795-814. 10.1037/dev0000898</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schiefele U. Interest and Learning From Text. Scientific Studies of Reading. 1999; 3; 3: 257-279. 10.1207/s1532799xssr0303_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schöber C, Schütte K, Köller O, McElvany N, Gebauer MM. Reciprocal effects between self-efficacy and achievement in mathematics and reading. Learning and Individual Differences. 2018; 63: 1-11. 10.1016/j.lindif.2018.01.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schunk DH, DiBenedetto MK. Motivation and social cognitive theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2020; 60: 101832. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101832</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scott Rigby C, Deci EL, Patrick BC, Ryan RM. Beyond the intrinsic-extrinsic dichotomy: Self-determination in motivation and learning. Motivation and Emotion. 1992; 16; 3: 165-185. 10.1007/BF00991650</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seaton M, Parker P, Marsh HW, Craven RG, Yeung AS. The reciprocal relations between self-concept, motivation and achievement: Juxtaposing academic self-concept and achievement goal orientations for mathematics success. Educational Psychology. 2014; 34; 1: 49-72. 10.1080/01443410.2013.825232</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sewasew D, Koester LS. The developmental dynamics of students' reading self-concept and reading competence: Examining reciprocal relations and ethnic-background patterns. Learning and Individual Differences. 2019; 73: 102-111. 10.1016/j.lindif.2019.05.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sewasew D, Schroeders U. The developmental interplay of academic self-concept and achievement within and across domains among primary school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2019; 58: 204-212. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.03.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shavelson RJ, Hubner JJ, Stanton GC. Self-concept: Validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research. 1976; 46; 3: 407-441. 10.3102/00346543046003407</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sisk VF, Burgoyne AP, Sun J, Butler JL, Macnamara BN. To what extent and under which circumstances are growth mind-sets important to academic achievement? Two meta-analyses. Psychological Science. 2018; 29; 4: 549-571. 10.1177/0956797617739704</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skinner, E. (1995). Perceived control, motivation, &amp; coping (8th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483327198.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skinner E, Wellborn JG, Connell JP. What It takes to do well in school and whether I've got it: A process model of perceived control and children's engagement and achievement in school. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1990; 82; 1: 22-32. 10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.22</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spangler DP, Friedman BH. Effortful control and resiliency exhibit different patterns of cardiac autonomic control. International Journal of Psychophysiology. 2015; 96; 2: 95-103. 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2015.03.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taras V, Kirkman B, Steel P. Examining the impact of culture's consequences: A three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede's cultural value dimensions. The Journal of Applied Psychology. 2010; 95; 3: 405-439. 10.1037/a0018938</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tavakolian K. Systolic time intervals and new measurement methods. Cardiovascular Engineering and Technology. 2016; 7; 2: 118-125. 10.1007/s13239-016-0262-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trautwein U, Lüdtke O, Marsh HW, Nagy G. Within-school social comparison: How students perceive the standing of their class predicts academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2009; 101; 4: 853-866. 10.1037/a0016306</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trigwell K, Ashwin P, Millan ES. Evoked prior learning experience and approach to learning as predictors of academic achievement: Predictors of academic achievement. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2013; 83; 3: 363-378. 10.1111/j.2044-8279.2012.02066.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Undorf M, Ackerman R. The puzzle of study time allocation for the most challenging items. Psychonomic Bulletin &amp; Review. 2017; 24; 6: 2003-2011. 10.3758/s13423-017-1261-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Usami S, Murayama K, Hamaker EL. A unified framework of longitudinal models to examine reciprocal relations. Psychological Methods. 2019; 24; 5: 637-657. 10.1037/met0000210</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Valentine, J. C, &amp; Dubois, D. L. (2005). Effects of self-beliefs on academic achievement and vice versa. In H. W. Marsh, R. G. Craven, &amp; D. M. McInerney (Eds.), International advances in self research: New frontiers for self research (2nd ed, pp. 53–78). Information Age.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Valentine JC, DuBois DL, Cooper H. The relation between self-beliefs and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist. 2004; 39; 2: 111-133. 10.1207/s15326985ep3902_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Amelsvoort, M, &amp; Krahmer, E. J. (2009). Appraisal of children's facial expressions while performing mathematics problems. In N. Taatgen &amp; H. van Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1698–1703). Cognitive Science Society https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6cs1f9t5. Accessed 10 July 2020.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van der Maas H, Dolan CV, Grasman RPPP, Wicherts JM, Huizenga HM, Raijmakers MEJ. A dynamical model of general intelligence: The positive manifold of intelligence by mutualism. Psychological Review. 2006; 113; 4: 842-861. 10.1037/0033-295X.113.4.842</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van der Maas H, Kan K-J, Marsman M, Stevenson CE. Network models for cognitive development and intelligence. Journal of Intelligence. 2017; 5; 2: 16. 10.3390/jintelligence5020016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vansteenkiste M, Simons J, Lens W, Sheldon KM, Deci EL. Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: The synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2004; 87; 2: 246-260. 10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.246</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vignoles VL, Owe E, Becker M, Smith PB, Easterbrook MJ, Brown R, González R, Didier N, Carrasco D, Cadena MP, Lay S, Schwartz SJ, Des Rosiers SE, Villamar JA, Gavreliuc A, Zinkeng M, Kreuzbauer R, Baguma P, Martin M. Beyond the "east-west" dichotomy: Global variation in cultural models of selfhood. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General. 2016; 145; 8: 966-1000. 10.1037/xge0000175</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Viljaranta J, Tolvanen A, Aunola K, Nurmi J-E. The developmental dynamics between interest, self-concept of ability, and academic performance. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. 2014; 58; 6: 734-756. 10.1080/00313831.2014.904419</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vu T-V, Finkenauer C, Huizinga M, Novin S, Krabbendam L. Do individualism and collectivism on three levels (country, individual, and situation) influence theory-of-mind efficiency? A cross-country study. PLoS One. 2017; 12; 8: e0183011. 10.1371/journal.pone.0183011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walgermo BR, Foldnes N, Uppstad PH, Solheim OJ. Developmental dynamics of early reading skill, literacy interest and readers' self-concept within the first year of formal schooling. Reading and Writing. 2018; 31; 6: 1379-1399. 10.1007/s11145-018-9843-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Watt HMG. Development of adolescents' self-perceptions, values, and task perceptions according to gender and domain in 7th- through 11th-grade Australian students. Child Development. 2004; 75; 5: 1556-1574. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00757.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weiner B. The development of an attribution-based theory of motivation: A history of ideas. Educational Psychologist. 2010; 45; 1: 28-36. 10.1080/00461520903433596</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wigfield A, Koenka AC. Where do we go from here in academic motivation theory and research? Some reflections and recommendations for future work. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2020; 61: 101872. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101872</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wigfield A, Eccles JS, Rodriguez D. The development of children's motivation in school contexts. Review of Research in Education. 1998; 23: 73-118. 10.2307/1167288JSTOR</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wigfield, A, Turci, L, Cambria, J, &amp; Eccles, J. S. (2019). Motivation in education. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190666453.013.24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yeager DS, Walton GM. Social-psychological interventions in education: They're not magic. Review of Educational Research. 2011; 81; 2: 267-301. 10.3102/0034654311405999</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yeager DS, Purdie-Vaughns V, Garcia J, Apfel N, Brzustoski P, Master A, Hessert WT, Williams ME, Cohen GL. Breaking the cycle of mistrust: Wise interventions to provide critical feedback across the racial divide. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2014; 143; 2: 804-824. 10.1037/a0033906</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yeager DS, Hanselman P, Walton GM, Murray JS, Crosnoe R, Muller C, Tipton E, Schneider B, Hulleman CS, Hinojosa CP, Paunesku D, Romero C, Flint K, Roberts A, Trott J, Iachan R, Buontempo J, Yang SM, Carvalho CM. A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement. Nature. 2019; 573; 7774: 364-369. 10.1038/s41586-019-1466-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yu S, Levesque-Bristol C. A cross-classified path analysis of the self-determination theory model on the situational, individual and classroom levels in college education. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2020; 61: 101857. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101857</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zwicker MV, Nohlen HU, Dalege J, Gruter G-JM, van Harreveld F. Applying an attitude network approach to consumer behaviour towards plastic. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2020; 69: 101433. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101433</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By TuongVan Vu; Lucía Magis-Weinberg; Brenda R. J. Jansen; Nienke van Atteveldt; Tieme W. P. Janssen; Nikki C. Lee; Han L. J. van der Maas; Maartje E. J. Raijmakers; Maien S. M. Sachisthal and Martijn Meeter</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib117" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib138" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib157" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib178" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib109" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib110" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib124" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib112" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib189" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib148" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib163" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib188" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib139" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib140" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib166" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib111" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib123" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib195" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib161" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib104" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib144" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib115" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib141" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib142" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib173" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib159" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib162" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib168" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib154" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib177" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib116" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib128" firstref="ref136"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib153" firstref="ref143"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib182" firstref="ref144"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib105" firstref="ref145"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref146"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref147"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref148"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref150"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref151"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref152"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref154"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref156"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib125" firstref="ref157"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib133" firstref="ref158"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib134" firstref="ref159"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib147" firstref="ref160"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib184" firstref="ref161"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib186" firstref="ref162"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref168"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib156" firstref="ref170"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref171"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref173"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib158" firstref="ref175"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref177"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib160" firstref="ref178"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref180"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref181"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib169" firstref="ref183"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib118" firstref="ref190"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib174" firstref="ref194"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref199"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl92" bibid="bib130" firstref="ref200"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl93" bibid="bib175" firstref="ref201"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl94" bibid="bib155" firstref="ref202"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl95" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref205"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl96" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref206"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl97" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref208"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl98" bibid="bib113" firstref="ref210"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl99" bibid="bib180" firstref="ref212"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl100" bibid="bib181" firstref="ref213"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl101" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref214"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl102" bibid="bib149" firstref="ref215"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl103" bibid="bib151" firstref="ref216"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl104" bibid="bib152" firstref="ref217"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl105" bibid="bib196" firstref="ref218"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl106" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref221"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl107" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref227"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl108" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref229"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl109" bibid="bib114" firstref="ref230"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl110" bibid="bib136" firstref="ref232"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl111" bibid="bib193" firstref="ref234"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl112" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref236"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl113" bibid="bib146" firstref="ref237"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl114" bibid="bib131" firstref="ref239"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl115" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref240"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl116" bibid="bib132" firstref="ref241"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl117" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref242"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl118" bibid="bib119" firstref="ref243"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl119" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref249"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl120" bibid="bib150" firstref="ref252"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl121" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref253"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl122" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref254"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl123" bibid="bib120" firstref="ref256"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl124" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref268"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl125" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref269"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl126" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref271"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl127" bibid="bib122" firstref="ref278"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl128" bibid="bib176" firstref="ref279"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl129" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref281"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl130" bibid="bib167" firstref="ref283"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl131" bibid="bib194" firstref="ref287"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl132" bibid="bib192" firstref="ref288"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl133" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref292"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl134" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref293"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl135" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref294"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl136" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref298"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl137" bibid="bib107" firstref="ref302"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl138" bibid="bib106" firstref="ref304"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl139" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref306"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl140" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref307"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl141" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref308"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl142" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref309"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl143" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref310"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl144" bibid="bib137" firstref="ref311"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl145" bibid="bib179" firstref="ref312"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl146" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref313"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl147" bibid="bib172" firstref="ref314"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl148" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref315"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl149" bibid="bib121" firstref="ref316"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl150" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref317"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl151" bibid="bib170" firstref="ref318"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl152" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref320"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl153" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref321"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl154" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref322"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl155" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref323"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl156" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref324"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl157" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref325"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl158" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref326"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl159" bibid="bib164" firstref="ref332"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl160" bibid="bib165" firstref="ref337"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl161" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref340"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl162" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref343"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl163" bibid="bib190" firstref="ref344"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl164" bibid="bib191" firstref="ref345"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl165" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref346"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl166" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref348"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl167" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref349"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl168" bibid="bib187" firstref="ref351"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl169" bibid="bib135" firstref="ref353"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl170" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref355"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl171" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref356"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl172" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref359"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl173" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref360"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl174" bibid="bib126" firstref="ref361"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl175" bibid="bib108" firstref="ref363"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl176" bibid="bib145" firstref="ref368"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl177" bibid="bib143" firstref="ref373"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl178" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref380"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl179" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref382"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl180" bibid="bib171" firstref="ref383"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl181" bibid="bib183" firstref="ref384"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl182" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref386"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl183" bibid="bib185" firstref="ref393"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl184" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref409"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl185" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref410"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl186" bibid="bib127" firstref="ref411"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl187" bibid="bib129" firstref="ref412"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1326092 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Motivation-Achievement Cycles in Learning: A Literature Review and Research Agenda – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Vu%2C+TuongVan%22">Vu, TuongVan</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6700-2439">0000-0001-6700-2439</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Magis-Weinberg%2C+Lucía%22">Magis-Weinberg, Lucía</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jansen%2C+Brenda+R%2E+J%2E%22">Jansen, Brenda R. J.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22van+Atteveldt%2C+Nienke%22">van Atteveldt, Nienke</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Janssen%2C+Tieme+W%2E+P%2E%22">Janssen, Tieme W. P.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lee%2C+Nikki+C%2E%22">Lee, Nikki C.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22van+der+Maas%2C+Han+L%2E+J%2E%22">van der Maas, Han L. J.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Raijmakers%2C+Maartje+E%2E+J%2E%22">Raijmakers, Maartje E. J.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sachisthal%2C+Maien+S%2E+M%2E%22">Sachisthal, Maien S. M.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Meeter%2C+Martijn%22">Meeter, Martijn</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Educational+Psychology+Review%22"><i>Educational Psychology Review</i></searchLink>. Mar 2022 34(1):39-71. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/ – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 33 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2022 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Information Analyses – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Motivation%22">Student Motivation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Achievement%22">Academic Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Literature+Reviews%22">Literature Reviews</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Theories%22">Educational Theories</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Research%22">Educational Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Methodology%22">Research Methodology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Behavior%22">Student Behavior</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1007/s10648-021-09616-7 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 1040-726X – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: The question of how learners' motivation influences their academic achievement and vice versa has been the subject of intensive research due to its theoretical relevance and important implications for the field of education. Here, we present our understanding of how influential theories of academic motivation have conceptualized reciprocal interactions between motivation and achievement and the kinds of evidence that support this reciprocity. While the reciprocal nature of the relationship between motivation and academic achievement has been established in the literature, further insights into several features of this relationship are still lacking. We therefore present a research agenda where we identify theoretical and methodological challenges that could inspire further understanding of the reciprocal relationship between motivation and achievement as well as inform future interventions. Specifically, the research agenda includes the recommendation that future research considers (1) multiple motivation constructs, (2) behavioral mediators, (3) a network approach, (4) alignment of intervals of measurement and the short vs. long time scales of motivation constructs, (5) designs that meet the criteria for making causal, reciprocal inferences, (6) appropriate statistical models, (7) alternatives to self-reports, (8) different ways of measuring achievement, and (9) generalizability of the reciprocal relations to various developmental, ethnic, and sociocultural groups. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2022 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1326092 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1326092 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1007/s10648-021-09616-7 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 33 StartPage: 39 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Student Motivation Type: general – SubjectFull: Academic Achievement Type: general – SubjectFull: Literature Reviews Type: general – SubjectFull: Educational Theories Type: general – SubjectFull: Educational Research Type: general – SubjectFull: Research Methodology Type: general – SubjectFull: Student Behavior Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Motivation-Achievement Cycles in Learning: A Literature Review and Research Agenda Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Vu, TuongVan – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Magis-Weinberg, Lucía – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Jansen, Brenda R. J. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: van Atteveldt, Nienke – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Janssen, Tieme W. P. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Lee, Nikki C. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: van der Maas, Han L. J. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Raijmakers, Maartje E. J. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Sachisthal, Maien S. M. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Meeter, Martijn IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 03 Type: published Y: 2022 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 1040-726X Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 34 – Type: issue Value: 1 Titles: – TitleFull: Educational Psychology Review Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
