A structural equation model of preservice ... - Wiley Online Library

bs_bs_banner

Japanese Psychological Research 2015, Volume 57, No. 3, 231–241

doi: 10.1111/jpr.12082

A structural equation model of pre-service teachers’ perceptions of future goals and current course-related motivation JUMI LEE* and JEANNINE E. TURNER MARGARETA MARIA THOMSON

Florida State University

North Carolina State University

Abstract: This study examined relationships between pre-service teachers’ perceptions of future goals and motivation to complete current tasks required in teacher education courses. Using 351 pre-service teachers’ survey responses from two southern universities in the USA, a full-structural modeling was conducted. Results showed pre-service teachers’ perceived endogenous instrumentality (value of the current course “content” to attain future goals) had a direct effect on their intrinsic motivation, and their perceived exogenous instrumentality (value of the current “grade” to attain future goals) had a direct effect on their extrinsic motivation. This research suggests students’ understanding of a relationship between their course content and future goal encourages their motivation to learn for enjoyment. Furthermore, students’ understanding of a relationship between the course grade of the current course and their future goal encourages their motivation to get a high course grade, not necessarily because they enjoyed the course content. This study contributes to understanding pre-service teachers’ cognitive/motivational characteristics and to developing appropriate learning environments of teacher education that align with pre-service teachers’ learning characteristics to promote their effective learning. Key words: perceived endogenous instrumentality, perceived exogenous instrumentality, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, pre-service teachers.

Students’ motivation for learning has received considerable empirical concern given that student motivation is an essential component for processing information (Shell et al., 2010). In the past 30 years, researchers have identified important motivational and cognitive variables that affect students’ learning and achievement. These variables include achievement goals (e.g., focus on mastering a skill or obtaining a grade that is higher than others’; Elliot, Murayama, & Pekrun, 2011), self-efficacy (beliefs in one’s ability to achieve a specific goal; Bandura, 1997), and emotions (e.g.,

Pekrun, Elliot, & Maier, 2009). The research demonstrates the importance of the linkages between students’ motivations and cognitions to understanding the motivational and cognitive factors that influence their learning. Students’ future goals have been considered as an important motivational construct (Husman & Lens, 1999; Kover & Worrell, 2010; Lens, Paixão, Herrera, & Grobler, 2012; Turner & Husman, 2008). Oyserman, Terry, and Bybee (2002) suggested that when a student has a positive image of a “possible self” (future selfimage one would like to have), the student’s

*Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to: Jumi Lee, Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems, Florida State University, West College Avenue, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) © 2015 Japanese Psychological Association. Published by Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.

232

J. Lee, J. E. Turner, and M. M. Thomson

academic involvement increases. For example, when students have a favorable perception of themselves as future teachers, they become more motivated to engage in tasks and put effort into becoming accomplished teachers (Markus & Nurius, 1986; Oyserman et al., 2002). When students who hold a future career goal of being a teacher enter a teacher education program, they need to connect the importance of learning the content of teacher education courses to becoming a future effective teacher (the possible self). It may seem intuitive that if students do not understand connections between their required courses and their future career, they may be less likely to put forth the energy for learning the material—even if that material could provide them with the expertise they need to become effective in accomplishing their future goal. However, research has shown that some students who enter a teacher education program do not desire to become future teachers (Pop & Turner, 2009). Furthermore, teacher-attrition is high (Darling-Hammond, 2000, 2010), particularly in the first few years of teaching. Therefore, understanding relationships among pre-service teachers’ perceptions of their coursework and their motivations for engaging in coursework appear to be a necessary first step in promoting their expertise, strengthening realistic expectations, and reducing inclinations to abandon a teaching career. As part of a larger research program, we want to learn points in the teacher education sequence when pre-service teachers’ falter in motivation. The purpose of this initial study was to explore relationships among pre-service teachers’ perceptions of their future goals (i.e., perceived instrumentality) and their motivations for current tasks required in teacher education courses. Specifically, we sought to understand linkages among two different types of possible perceptions regarding pre-service teachers’ instrumentality (endogenous/exogenous) of current coursework and two different types of motivations (intrinsic/extrinsic) they may have for engaging in coursework. To do this, we studied pre-service teachers who were © Japanese Psychological Association 2015.

enrolled in teacher-education programs of two southern research universities in the USA. The setting allowed us to study the connections that pre-service teachers had, or did not have, for their required courses and their motivational focus for engaging in required coursework. If pre-service teachers perceive that the information they are learning within current education courses will directly affect their attainment of skills for their future goals, they should have more intrinsic motivation (i.e., the learning process is enjoyable and rewarding) to engage in learning required material. Subsequently, their motivation should then lead to using deep and extensive learning strategies within their required courses. They would consequently gain theories and skills needed to flourish as educational instructors and leaders.

Connection between now and the future: perceived instrumentality Within the fields of education and psychology, “the future” or “having a future goal” implies expectations and anticipations of future events (Husman & Lens, 1999; Lens et al., 2012; Nuttin & Lens, 1985). The “psychological” future (expectations about the future) is considered to be a motivational construct (Husman & Lens, 1999; Lens et al., 2012). “Future time perspective theory” (FTP) was developed as a framework for researching ways that future goals can provide motivational fuel for engaging in current tasks (Husman & Lens, 1999; Miller & Brickman, 2004; Simons, Dewitte, & Lens, 2000). Research has shown that students who perceive the future as being important, are more motivated to learn—in terms of study effort and reasons for studying—than those who do not perceive the future as important to them (Creten, Lens, & Simons, 2001). “Perceived instrumentality” refers to “the connection between successfully completing a present task and reaching a long term future goal” (Husman & Hilpert, 2007, p. 230). Perceived instrumentality is a situational variable; thus, a student’s perception of

Perceived instrumentality and motivation

the instrumentality of doing a current task varies depending on the student’s future goals (Husman & Lens, 1999). For example, one student may perceive that taking a mathematics class has instrumental value to the student’s future goal of becoming an engineer, but another student may perceive that the same class has no instrumental value to the goal of becoming a journalist. Perceived instrumentality in FTP is similar to “utility value” proposed in expectancy-value theories (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Utility value is the extent to which a student perceives that completing an academic task has value to attain their academic goals. Although utility value and instrumentality are similar, differences exist between them. According to Husman, Derryberry, Crowson, and Lomax (2004), utility value does not necessarily consider the importance of time perspective, whereas instrumentality highlights perspectives of the future. In addition, instrumentality focuses on the relationship between present tasks and future goals while utility value only focuses on the immediate value of completing a task (Husman et al., 2004), with no differentiation as to the reasons for valuing the completion of the task. Students’ perceptions of instrumentality have been shown to be a powerful motivational construct that promotes and maintains motivation for, and engagement with, learning. For example, Van Calster, Lens, and Nuttin (1987) found that among students who had a positive attitude toward the future, those who also had a high level of perceived course instrumentality (saw a direct connection between being successful in the course and obtaining their desired future) showed higher scores for learningrelated motivation and earned higher exam scores, compared to students who had only somewhat positive, or even negative, attitudes toward the future. Furthermore, Creten et al. (2001) found that when students had long-term future goals (e.g., I want to make a lot of money in the future), their perceived instrumentality of courses was higher than when they had only short-term goals (e.g., I want to get a high course grade).

233

Perceived endogenous and exogenous instrumentality Instrumentality has been described as having two distinct subtypes: “endogenous” instrumentality and “exogenous” instrumentality (Husman & Lens, 1999). When a student understands that “mastering” a current task is directly connected to their future goal, the current task has endogenous instrumentality for the student (Husman & Lens, 1999; Husman, McCann, & Crowson, 2000). For example, if high school students perceive that mastering the content of a biology course is “directly” useful and important to being doctors in the future, the biology course has an endogenous instrumental value. On the other hand, when students perceive that the course content is not directly important for future goals, but the “outcomes” of the course, such as a course grade that indicates students have completed a requirement that is “indirectly” related to obtaining a future goal, the students will have exogenous instrumentality (Husman & Lens, 1999). For example, if a high school student wants to receive a high biology grade so that he/she can attend a high-quality university to become a journalist in the future, the grade from a biology course may have an exogenous instrumental value for achieving the goal of becoming a journalist. In this case, the student will perceive that obtaining a high biology grade in the present is indirectly, yet importantly, connected to the future goal because it will help the student get into a good journalism program at a well-respected university. Meanwhile the student who wants to become a doctor will perceive the content of the current biology course as having high endogenous instrumentality for learning knowledge that will be used when being a doctor in the future, but the current course grade may also have exogenous instrumentality for getting into a good medical school. Empirically, endogenous instrumentality has been related to various motivational and cognitive variables that are considered as essential for successful learning. For example, Husman et al. (2004) found that college students’ perceptions that academic tasks were © Japanese Psychological Association 2015.

234


endogenously instrumental for future goals also had intrinsic motivation for doing the tasks. Additionally, students who spent more time studying had a higher level of endogenous instrumentality for academic tasks than students who spent less time studying. In another study, Husman and Hilpert (2007) found that students’ perceived endogenous instrumentality had a positive relationship with their self-efficacy and self-regulation, and these were significant predictors of their academic performance. Examining pre-service teachers’ perceptions of endogenous instrumentality has received far more empirical focus than students’ perceptions of exogenous instrumentality. We wondered if these two types of instrumentality might have different relationships with students’ intrinsic motivation (learning itself was a reward) and extrinsic motivation (focusing on obtaining external rewards, such as grades). Our study begins to close the knowledge-gap between studies that focused on connections of students’ perceived endogenous instrumentality and academic motivation and the paucity of knowledge about connections of students’ perceived exogenous instrumentality and academic motivation. We were particularly interested in how these variables were related for pre-service teachers. Perceived instrumentality and motivation Intrinsic motivation occurs when students engage in learning because of personal interests (Ryan & Deci, 2000). On the other hand, extrinsic motivation occurs when students focus on obtaining external incentives, such as high grades or approval (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Research has demonstrated that students’ motivations are related to cognitive variables for learning, such as using deep learning strategies (Ames & Archer, 1988; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990) and increased academic performance (Lin, McKeachie, & Kim, 2003). Previous studies have shown that students’ motivations are related to general perceptions of instrumentality. For example, Miller, DeBacker, and Greene (1999) found that college students’ perceived instrumentality was © Japanese Psychological Association 2015.

a significant predictor of their intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, but had a stronger relationship with extrinsic than intrinsic motivation. More recently, Kover and Worrell (2010) adopted the research design used by Miller et al. (1999) in a study of academically advanced high school students, yet their results were a bit different. Their findings showed that academically advanced students’ perceived course instrumentality was an equal predictor of both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. These studies have provided empirical evidence that students’ perceived instrumentality (in general) can be positively related to their intrinsic and extrinsic motivations (Kover & Worrell, 2010; Miller et al., 1999), but the specific results may depend on the particular groups that are the focus of the research. Additionally, although these studies have contributed to understanding positive relationships among students’ perceived instrumentality and their motivations to learn, research has not investigated the ways in which both perceived endogenous and exogenous instrumentalities are related to students’ motivations; and in particular, the relationships among these variables for pre-service teachers. Therefore, in this study, we explored the influences of endogenous and exogenous instrumentalities with pre-service teachers’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivations in required teacher education courses (i.e., Educational Psychology, Classroom Assessment) using structural equation modeling. To evaluate relationships among these variables, a hypothesized model (Figure 1) was constructed. This hypothesized model was made based on previous research showing that: (a) students’ future goals influence their motivation and learning (Creten et al., 2001; Husman & Lens, 1999); (b) students’ perceived instrumentality is related to intrinsic/extrinsic motivations (Kover & Worrell, 2010; Miller et al., 1999); and (c) students’ endogenous instrumentality is positively related to intrinsic motivation (Husman et al., 2004). The hypothesized model suggests that pre-service teachers’ perceived endogenous instrumentality has significant, direct effects on both their intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, while their perceived


exogenous instrumentality has a significant, direct effect on only extrinsic motivation. We thought that students’ understanding of the value of the course content to attain future goals (endogenous instrumentality) could encourage their motivation to learn for both intrinsic reasons (e.g., one’s satisfaction) and extrinsic reasons (e.g., high course grade). Preservice teachers need to acquire knowledge about teaching and earn a high grade point average during teacher education to obtain a good teaching position in the future. Students who see the instrumental value of mastering the course content for preparing them for their future teaching career may think that understanding the course content will allow them to have both knowledge about teaching and earn a high course grade because high course grades are most often given to those students who successfully complete course tasks. Students with endogenous instrumentality may also realize that fully understanding the course content encourages them to being academically outstanding among students in the course and thus they may expect to receive positive feedback from teachers and peers. Therefore, pre-service teachers who have endogenous instrumentality may be similar to the academically advanced high school students—having both intrinsic and

235

extrinsic motivations for teacher education courses. On the other hand, students who perceive that course grades are only indirectly related to achieving their future goals (exogenous instrumentality) may not study for their enjoyment of learning the course content, but only for the completion of a degree requirement.

Methodology Participants and procedure For this study, 351 pre-service teachers’ survey responses were collected from two different southern universities in the USA. From one southern university, a total of 206 undergraduate students in a teacher-preparation program were surveyed in the spring of 2009. The majority of participants were Caucasian (n = 187; 91%) and female (n = 183; 89%), and enrolled as juniors and seniors (n = 156; 76%). Participants were mainly enrolled in the elementary education program (n = 102; 50%) or in the mathematics education program (n = 78; 38%). From another southern university, a total of 145 undergraduate students in a teacherpreparation program were recruited in the fall of 2009. The majority of participants were

Figure 1 Hypothesized model of pre-service teachers’ perceived instrumentality and motivation. © Japanese Psychological Association 2015.

236


Table 1

1. 2. 3. 4.

Means, SD, and correlations of students’ instrumentality and motivation

Endogenous instrumentality Exogenous instrumentality Intrinsic motivation Extrinsic motivation

M

SD

1

2

3

4.85 4.85 3.86 3.94

1.06 1.10 1.02 1.08

— .33** .45** .12*

— — .13* .15*

— — — .26**

Note. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Caucasian (n = 108; 74%) and female (n = 109; 75%), and enrolled as juniors or seniors (n = 136; 94%). For data collection, an online survey or a paper survey was used. Participants were informed of the general purpose of the study and then completed the survey (approximately 20 min) once they signed the consent form. The questionnaire asked their opinions about their future goals and their motivation in the required course of the teacher preparation program. In the demographic section of the survey, participants were asked to describe their current future academic/career goals, and the majority of participants (n = 268, 76%) indicated they were “definitely interested in obtaining a teaching position after graduation.” Instruments Perceived instrumentality. The perceived instrumentality scale used for previous studies (e.g., Hilpert et al., 2012; Husman et al., 2004) was used to assess pre-service teachers’ perceptions of their future goals related to their current academic courses in their pre-service teacher education. Among a total of eight items, four items assessed participants’ perceptions of endogenous instrumentality (e.g., “What I learn in this education course will be important for my future occupational success”) and four items assessed participants’ perceptions of exogenous instrumentality (e.g., “The grade I get in this education course will affect my future”). Students were asked to rate items using a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 6 (extremely true). For this study, the Cronbach’s α for endogenous instrumentality was .90, and for exogenous instrumentality was .70. © Japanese Psychological Association 2015.

Intrinsic/extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic/extrinsic motivations were assessed by subscales from the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991). Four items assessed participants’ intrinsic motivation (e.g., “In this class, I prefer course material that really challenges me, so I can learn new things”) and four items assessed participants’ extrinsic motivation (e.g., “If I can, I want to get better grades in this class than most of the other students”). Students were asked to rate items using a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 6 (extremely true). For this study, the Cronbach’s α for intrinsic motivation was .78, and for extrinsic motivation was .69.

Results Descriptive and correlational analyses were initially conducted. As demonstrated in Table 1, pre-service teachers’ ratings on endogenous instrumentality were significantly correlated with their ratings of exogenous instrumentality (r = .33, p < .01), intrinsic motivation (r = .45, p < .01), and extrinsic motivation (r = .12, p < .05). Structural equation modeling To examine the effect of pre-service teachers’ perceptions of endogenous and exogenous instrumentalities on their intrinsic and extrinsic motivations in required courses for teacher education, a structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis was used. A full structural modeling of SEM methods is appropriate to evaluate the relationships among factor-indicators (i.e., items) and factors (Kline, 2011). SEM computer software, M-plus 6.0, was used for the


full-structural modeling analysis. Maximum likelihood estimates (MLE) were used as the estimation method for the SEM analysis. Cutoff scores for each index to determine an acceptable model-fit for this study were: comparative fit index (CFI) values larger than .90 (Bentler, 1990), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) values smaller than .10, and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) values smaller than .10 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). First, a measurement model for this study was generated. All indices but CFI of the measurement model indicated that this model had an acceptable model fit to the data (χ2 (98) = 337.61; p = .00; CFI = .89; SRMR = .08; RMSEA = .08 with 90% confidence interval (CI): .07, .09). To improve the measurement model, the measurement model was modified based on the modification indices of M-Plus and after reviewing the item content of the intrinsic motivation subscale. Subsequently, a covariance between the residuals of intrinsic motivation item 1 and item 2 was added to the original measurement model. Both intrinsic motivation item 1 (“I prefer course material that arouses my curiosity, even if it is difficult to learn”) and item 2 (“In this class, I prefer course material that really challenges me, so I can learn new things”) were about students’ interest in learning; therefore, a covariance between the residuals of intrinsic motivation item 1 and 2 was added. The revised measurement model with a covariance between intrinsic motivation item 1 and item 2 had an acceptable model fit to the data (χ2 (97) = 276.96; p = .00; CFI = .92; SRMR = .07; RMSEA = .07 with 90% CI: .06, .08) and a better model fit than the original measurement model (χ2dif =60.65; dfdif =1). Subsequently, based on the modification indices and after reviewing items for the extrinsic motivation goal orientation subscale, a covariance between the residuals of extrinsic motivation item 1 (“Getting a good grade in this class is the most satisfying thing for me right now”) and item 2 (“If I can, I want to get better grades in this class than most of the other students”) was added to the revised measurement model.

237

Extrinsic motivation item 1 and item 2 were about students’ concerns on getting a higher course grade; therefore, adding this covariance between the residuals of extrinsic item 1 and 2 was reasonable. The final measurement model with a covariance between the residuals of extrinsic motivation item 1 and 2 had an acceptable fit to the data (χ2 (96) = 255.77; p = .00; CFI = .93; SRMR = .07; RMSEA = .07 with 90% CI: .06, .08), and had a better model fit than the revised measurement model (χ2dif = 21.19; dfdif =1). The hypothesized model was tested and results demonstrated that it had an acceptable model fit (χ2 (97) = 258.13; p = .00; CFI = .93; SRMR = .07; RMSEA = .07 with 90% CI: .06, .08). The χ2 difference test between the final measurement model and the hypothesized model indicated that the two models were not significantly different from each other (χ2dif =2.36; dfdif =1), so the hypothesized model was chosen over the final measurement model. Finally, to reach a simpler model, a nonsignificant path between endogenous instrumentality and extrinsic motivation was deleted from the hypothesized model. The final fullstructural model had an adequate fit to the data (χ2 (98) = 258.15; p = .00; CFI = .93; SRM =.07; RMSEA = .07 with 90% CI: .06, .08) and was not significantly different from the hypothesized model (χ2dif =.02; dfdif = 1); thus the final full-structural model was chosen because it was more parsimonious. The final full structural model demonstrated that the standardized coefficient for the direct effect of perceived endogenous instrumentality on intrinsic motivation was .58 and the standardized coefficient for the direct effect of exogenous instrumentality on extrinsic motivation was .39 (see Figure 2).

Discussion This study examined relationships among pre-service teachers’ perceived endogenous/ exogenous instrumentalities and intrinsic/ extrinsic motivations to better understand how their perceptions of future goals influence their © Japanese Psychological Association 2015.

238


motivations to learn in teacher education courses. SEM results indicated that pre-service teachers’ perceived endogenous instrumentality had a direct effect on their intrinsic motivation to learn. Additionally, pre-service teachers’ perceived exogenous instrumentality had a direct effect on their extrinsic motivation to learn. Results of this study are aligned with previous research that found a significant relationship between students’ instrumentality and their motivation (e.g., Creten et al., 2001; Husman et al., 2004; Kover & Worrell, 2010; Miller et al., 1999). Moreover, this study provided more specific information about relationships between two different types of perceived instrumentality (endogenous/exogenous) and two different types of motivations (intrinsic/extrinsic) with respect to pre-service teachers. Although our hypothesized model predicted relationships between pre-service teachers’ endogenous instrumentality and both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, our analysis indicated that pre-service teachers’ endogenous instru-

mentality influenced only their intrinsic motivations. Thus, our results were supportive of previous research that showed a relationship between college students’ general perceptions of course-related instrumentality and students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivations (Kover & Worrell, 2010; Miller et al., 1999). However, because Miller et al. (1999) and Kover and Worrell (2010) did not assess students’ perceptions of endogenous (direct) and exogenous (indirect) instrumentality, and only assessed a general factor of instrumentality, in our results, we could see which type of instrumentality was more specifically aligned with students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Kover and Worrell’s study (focused on academically advanced high school students), suggested that results vary depending on the group of students assessed. In that sense, perhaps the specific instrumentality is not as important as the specific students. Future research could investigate this aspect. For the present, our results begin to understand the ways that endogenous and exogenous instrumentalities

Figure 2 Final full-structural model of pre-service teachers’ perceived instrumentality and motivation. © Japanese Psychological Association 2015.


are related particularly to students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivations and our results show the relationships of these variables for preservice teachers. Implication for practice This research provides useful information for teacher educators to think how they can provide learning environments to promote preservice teachers’ motivation during required teacher education courses. Teacher educators should provide specific explanations regarding the rationales of all aspects of teacher education to maximize pre-service teachers’ motivation to acquire knowledge necessary for the teaching profession and thus be well prepared. According to Keller (2010), to stimulate students’ interest for course contents and to facilitate students’ learning, connecting the relevance of course contents (endogenous instrumentality) is an important instructional strategy for influencing students’ intrinsic motivation. Thus it is essential to answer the question, “Why do we have to study this?” (Keller, 2010, p. 125) to stimulate students’ motivation to learn, which subsequently facilitates their cognitive engagement with course materials and promotes the construction of their knowledge (Keller, 2010; Shell et al., 2010). Therefore, the relevance of class activities and assignments should be provided and implemented. For example, inviting experienced teachers to provide examples of how the contents of required teacher education courses will be applied within their future career situations may be good “relevance” class activities (Keller, 2010). Specifically, for those pre-service teachers who are not aware of the importance of current academic tasks for their future goals of becoming effective teachers, establishing relevance may be necessary to promote their motivation to learn. Because we found significant influences of pre-service teachers’ perceptions of future goals on their learning motivation, creating learning environments that encourage pre-service teachers to keep their specific future goals in mind as they engage with course content may be a prerequisite to help them stay focused on their studies.

239

Tabachnick, Miller, and Relyea (2008) found that college students’ distal future goals were significantly related to their proximal sub-goals for college graduation. Therefore, for those preservice teachers who do not have a specific future goal to become an effective teacher, teacher educators should think of ways to help them set a specific future goal that directly or indirectly connects to course content and may stimulate students’ motivation to learn. For example, teacher educators’ communications with pre-service teachers individually (e.g., oneon-one mentoring) may support pre-service teachers’ understanding of the important role of shaping future goals so that they see the relevance of completing college-level course work successfully (proximal sub-goals) for attaining the specific future goal. To create effective learning environments for pre-service teachers, teacher educators should pay attention to pre-service teachers’ preexisting beliefs, attitudes, and knowledge (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). Because effective learning environments inspire students to recognize why they should learn, providing effective learning environments to pre-service teachers is important for their successful preparation for future teaching as well as providing important modeling about creating meaningful contexts. With a current focus on the “quality” of teachers that positively affect student learning (Darling-Hammond, 2008; Sanders & Rivers, 1996) and the fact that teacher attrition is high, it is more important than ever for pre-service teachers to be well prepared during their teacher education.

References Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260–267. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Fit indexes, lagrange multipliers, constraint changes and incomplete data in structural models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 163–172. © Japanese Psychological Association 2015.

240


Bransford, J. D., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded ed.). Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage Focus Editions, 154, 136–136. Creten, H., Lens, W., & Simons, J. (2001). The role of perceived instrumentality in student motivation. In A. Efklides, J. Kuhl & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Trends and prospects in motivation research (pp. 37–45). Dordrecht: Springer. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 166–173. Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teacher learning that supports student learning. Teaching for Intelligence, 2, 91–100. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 35–47. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132. Elliot, A. J., Murayama, K., & Pekrun, R. (2011). A 3× 2 achievement goal model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 632–648. Hilpert, J. C., Husman, J., Stump, G. S., Kim, W., Chung, W. T., & Duggan, M. A. (2012). Examining students’ future time perspective: Pathways to knowledge building. Japanese Psychological Research, 54, 229–240. Husman, J., Derryberry, W. P., Crowson, H. M., & Lomax, R. (2004). Instrumentality, task value, and intrinsic motivation: Making sense of their independent interdependence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 63–76. Husman, J., & Hilpert, J. (2007). The intersection of students’ perceptions of instrumentality, selfefficacy, and goal orientations in an online mathematics course. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 21, 229–239. Husman, J., & Lens, W. (1999). The role of future in student motivation. Educational Psychologist, 34, 113–125. Husman, J., McCann, E., & Crowson, H. M. (2000). Volitional strategies and future time perspective embracing the complexity of dynamic interactions. International Journal of Educational Research, 33, 777–799. Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model approach. New York, NY: Springer. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. © Japanese Psychological Association 2015.

Kover, D. J., & Worrell, F. C. (2010). The influence of instrumentality beliefs on intrinsic motivation: A study of high-achieving adolescents. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21, 470–498. Lens, W., Paixão, M. P., Herrera, D., & Grobler, A. (2012). Future time perspective as a motivational variable: Content and extension of future goals affect the quantity and quality of motivation. Japanese Psychological Research, 54, 321– 333. Lin, Y., McKeachie, W., & Kim, Y. (2003). College student intrinsic and/or extrinsic motivation and learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 13, 251–258. Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954–969. Miller, R. B., & Brickman, S. J. (2004). A model of future-oriented motivation and self-regulation. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 9–33. Miller, R. B., DeBacker, T. K., & Greene, B. A. (1999). Perceived instrumentality and academics: The link to task valuing. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 26, 250–260. Nuttin, J., & Lens, W. (1985). Future time perspective and motivation: Theory and research method. Leuven & Hillsdale, NJ: Leuven University Press & Erlbaum. Oyserman, D., Terry, K., & Bybee, D. (2002). A possible selves intervention to enhance school involvement. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 313– 326. Pekrun, R., Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2009). Achievement goals and achievement emotions: Testing a model of their joint relations with academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 115–135. Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. Pop, M. M., & Turner, J. E. (2009). To be or not to be . . . a teacher? Exploring levels of commitment related to perceptions of teaching among students enrolled in a teacher education program. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15, 683–700. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.

Perceived instrumentality and motivation Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. Research Progress Report, University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center, Knoxville, Tennessee. Shell, D. F., Brooks, D. W., Trainin, G., Wilson, K. M., Kauffman, D. F., & Herr, L. M. (2010). The unified learning model: How motivational, cognitive, and neurobiological sciences inform best teaching practices. Dordrecht: Springer. Simons, J., Dewitte, S., & Lens, W. (2000). Wanting to have vs. wanting to be: The effect of perceived instrumentality on goal orientation. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 335–351. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

241

Tabachnick, S. E., Miller, R. B., & Relyea, G. E. (2008). The relationships among students’ future-oriented goals and subgoals, perceived task instrumentality and task-oriented selfregulation strategies in an academic environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 629–642. Turner, J. E., & Husman, J. (2008). Emotional and cognitive self-regulation following academic shame. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20, 138– 173. Van Calster, K., Lens, W., & Nuttin, J. (1987). Affective attitude toward the personal future: Impact on motivation in high school boys. American Journal of Psychology, 100, 1–13. (Received August 25, 2014; accepted January 24, 2015)

© Japanese Psychological Association 2015.