Examining how students' epistemic beliefs (EB) influence their cognition is central to EB research. Recently, the relation between students' EB and their motivation has gained attention. In the present study, we investigate the development of the relationship between students' EB and their achievement goals (AG) over grades 5-11. Previous studies on this topic are limited, in both number and range, and have produced inconsistent results. We performed a cross-sectional study, ranging over grades 5-11, and a 3-year longitudinal study (n = 1230 and 323, respectively). Data on students' EB and AG were collected via questionnaires. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) supported a two-factor goal model (Mastery and Performance goals) and a structure of students' EB comprising Certainty, Source, Development, and Justification. For each grade, students' CFA scores on the respective goals were regressed on their scores on the EB dimensions by orthogonal projection to latent structures analysis. Although results indicated a weak relation between students' EB and AG, trends in the cross-sectional data were largely replicated in the longitudinal study. Though naïve EB were in general associated with performance goals and sophisticated EB with mastery goals, the transition to upper secondary school was associated with changes in the relationship between students' EB and AG. We discuss how the commonly used formulations of EB items may affect their ability to measure the naïve-sophisticated continuum, in turn affecting the predictive roles of EB dimensions.

Achievement goal theory is one of the most widespread motivation models within education research. Strong empirical support exists for the trichotomous model, comprising mastery-approach, performanceapproach, and performance-avoidance goals. However, research also indicates problems with model transferability between contexts. In this study, based on questionnaire data from 4201 students, we use confirmatory factor analysis to compare the factor structures of students' achievement goals in two culturally distinct countries. Factor structures for Grades 5-11 within the two countries were also compared. Results show that the separation between performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals differs between the two countries, and that this difference is consistent over the grades. Hence, results indicate that the model is not freely transferable between countries. The results are discussed in relation to differences in national culture and other proposed explanations such as age, perceived competence, and questionnaire characteristics.

It is often assumed that students' personal achievement goals are most beneficial when they match the goal structures of the classroom, but interaction between achievement goals and goal structures is not well researched. In this study, we aim at providing a nuanced picture of the direct, interaction, and nonlinear effects of achievement goals and goal structures on test performance and autonomous motivation. We used multiple linear regressions, including interaction and quadratic terms, in combination with response surface methodology to analyze questionnaire data from students in Grades 6-10. We found no evidence for a general match effect, and only weak indications of interactions between achievement goals and goal structures. Thus, the match between classroom goal structures and students' personal goals may be less important for students' motivation and achievement than previously assumed. Still, based on our results we recommend a focus on mastery structures in the classroom.

Each time new PISA results are presented, they gain a lot of attention. However, there are many factors that lie behind the results, and they get less attention. In this study, we take a person-centered approach and focus on students’ motivation and beliefs, and how these predict students’ effort and performance on the PISA 2015 assessment of scientific literacy. Moreover, we use both subjective (self-report) and objective (time-based) measures of effort, which allows us to compare these different types of measures. Latent profile analysis was used to group students in profiles based on their instrumental motivation, enjoyment, interest, self-efficacy, and epistemic beliefs (all with regard to science). A solution with four profiles proved to be best. When comparing the effort and performance of these four profiles, we saw several significant differences, but many of these differences disappeared when we added gender and the PISA index of economic, social, and cultural status (ESCS) as control variables. The main difference between the profiles, after adding control variables, was that the students in the profile with most positive motivation and sophisticated epistemic beliefs performed best and put in the most effort. Students in the profile with unsophisticated epistemic beliefs and low intrinsic values (enjoyment and interest) were most likely to be classified as low-effort responders. We conclude that strong motivation and sophisticated epistemic beliefs are important for both the effort students put into the PISA assessment and their performance, but also that ESCS had an unexpectedly large impact on the results.

Behavioral engagement is a key determinant of students’ learning. Hence, knowledge about mechanisms affecting engagement is crucial for educators and stakeholders. Self-determination theory (SDT) offers a framework to understand one of these mechanisms. However, extant studies mostly consider only parts of SDT’s theoretical paths from basic psychological need satisfaction via regulations to student engagement. Studies that investigate the full model are rare, especially in mathematics, and results are inconclusive. Moreover, constructs are often merged in ways that may preclude detailed understanding. In this study, we used structural equation modeling to test several hypothesized paths between the individual variables that make up higher-order constructs of need satisfaction, regulations, and behavioral engagement. Satisfaction of the need for competence had a dominating effect on engagement, both directly and via identified regulation. Similarly, satisfaction of the need for relatedness predicted identified regulation, that in turn predicted engagement. Satisfaction of the need for autonomy predicted intrinsic regulation as expected but, in contrast to theory, was also positively associated with controlled motivation (external and introjected regulation). Neither intrinsic nor controlled regulation predicted engagement. Theoretical and method-related reasons for this unexpected pattern are discussed, as well as implications for research and teaching.