This article describes the control-value theory of achievement emotions and its implications for educational research and practice. The theory provides an integrative framework for analyzing the antecedents and effects of emotions experienced in achievement and academic settings. It is based on the premise that appraisals of control and values are central to the arousal of achievement emotions, including activity-related emotions such as enjoyment, frustration, and boredom experienced at learning, as well as outcome emotions such as joy, hope, pride, anxiety, hopelessness, shame, and anger relating to success or failure. Corollaries of the theory pertain to the multiplicity and domain specificity of achievement emotions; to their more distal individual and social antecedents, their effects on engagement and achievement, and the reciprocal linkages between emotions, antecedents and effects; to the regulation and development of these emotions; and to their relative universality across genders and cultures. Implications addressed concern the conceptual integration of emotion, motivation, and cognition, and the need to advance mixed-method paradigms. In closing, implications for educational practice are discussed.

Academic emotions have largely been neglected by educational psychology, with the exception of test anxiety. In 5 qualitative studies, it was found that students experience a rich diversity of emotions in academic settings. Anxiety was reported most often, but overall, positive emotions were described no less frequently than negative emotions. Based on the studies in this article, taxonomies of different academic emotions and a self-report instrument measuring students' enjoyment, hope, pride, relief, anger, anxiety, shame, hopelessness, and boredom (Academic Emotions Questionnaire [AEQ]) were developed. Using the AEQ, assumptions of a cognitive-motivational model of the achievement effects of emotions, and of a control/value theory of their antecedents (Pekrun, 1992b(Pekrun, , 2000, were tested in 7 cross-sectional, 3 longitudinal, and 1 diary study using samples of university and school students. Results showed that academic emotions are significantly related to students' motivation, learning strategies, cognitive resources, self-regulation, and academic achievement, as well as to personality and classroom antecedents. The findings indicate that affective research in educational psychology should acknowledge emotional diversity in academic settings by addressing the full range of emotions experienced by students at school and university.Requests for reprints should be sent to Reinhard Pekrun,

Aside from test anxiety sca les, measurement instruments assessing studen ts' achievement emotions are largely lacking. This article reports on the construction, reliability, internal validity, and external validity of the Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ) which is designed to assess various achievement emo tions experienced by students in academic settings. The instrument contains 24 scales measuring enjoy ment, hope, pride, relief, anger, anxiety, shame, hopelessness, and boredom during class, while studying, and when taking tests and exams. Scale construction used a rational empirical strategy based on Pek run's (2006) control value theory of achievement emotions and prior exploratory research. The instru ment was tested in a study using a sample of university students (N 389). Findings indicate that the scales are reliable, internally valid as demonstrated by confirmatory factor analysis, and externally valid in terms of relationships with students' control value appraisals, learning, and academic performance. The results provide further support for the control value theOlY and help to elucidate the structure and role of emotions in educational settings. Directions for future research and implications for educa tiona I practice are discussed.

In the present research, a 3 X 2 model of achievement goals is proposed and tested. The model is rooted in the definition and valence components of competence, and encompasses 6 goal constructs: taskapproach, task-avoidance, self-approach, self-avoidance, other-approach, and other-avoidance. The results from 2 studies provided strong support for the proposed model, most notably the need to separate task-based and self-based goals. Studies 1 and 2 yielded data establishing the 3 X 2 structure of achievement goals, and Study 2 documented the antecedents and consequences of each of the goals in the 3 X 2 model. Terminological, conceptual, and applied issues pertaining to the 3 x 2 model are discussed.For over three decades, the study of achievement goals has been an important focus of the achievement motivation literature. Several different conceptual models of achievement goals have been developed during this time, and applying these models in both laboratory and real-world contexts has taught us much about achievement motivation and its consequences. In the present research, we offer a 3 X 2 achievement goal model designed to both extend and clarify the study of achievement goals. We begin by laying out a historical overview of conceptual work on achievement goals and proceed to articulate the need for and nature of the 3X2 achievement goal model. Conceptual ContextThe achievement goal construct was developed in the late 1970s and early 1980s in independent and collaborative work by Carole Ames (1984), Carol Dweck (1986), Marty Maehr (Maehr &Nicholls, 1980), and John NichoUs (1984). Each of these theorists distinguished between two qualitatively distinct goals for achievement behavior, and the conceptualizations they offered were similar enough to be referred to together as "the dichotomous achievement goal model." In this model, achievement goal is defined as the purpose for engaging in achievement behavior (Maehr, 1989), and the two goal types delineated are mastery goals, in which the purpose is to develop competence and task mastery, and performance goals, in which the purpose is to demonstrate competence (usually normative competence). Both mastery and performance goals are construed as approach goals (Ames, 1992; NichoUs, Patashnick, Cheung, Thorkildsen, & Lauer, 1989), and the two goals are posited to have different nomological networks.In the 1990s and 2000s, EUicrt and colleagues proposed a set of achievement goal models that extended the dichotomous model through the incorporation of avoidance, as well as approach, goals. In the trichotomous achievement goal model (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996), the performance goal construct is bifurcated by approach-avoidance, leading to three separate goals: mastery, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance. In the 2 X 2 achievement goal model (EUiot, 1999), the mastery goal construct is also bifurcated by approach-avoidance, and a fourth goal is added to the trichotomy: mastery-avoidance. Each of the goals in these models is posited to have a distinct pattem ...

The linkages of achievement-related boredom with students' appraisals and performance outcomes were examined in a series of 5 exploratory, cross-sectional , and predictive investigations. Studies I and 2 assessed students' boredom in a single achievement episode (i.e., state achievement boredom); Studies 3, 4, and 5 focused on their habitual boredom (i.e., trait achievement boredom). Samples consisted of university students from two different cultural contexts (North America and Germany). In line with hypotheses derived from Pekrun's (2006) control-value theory of achievement emotions, achievementrelated subjective control and value negatively predicted boredom. In turn, boredom related positively to attention problems and negatively to intrinsic motivation, effo rt, use of elaboration strategies , sel fregulation, and subsequent academic performance. Findings were consi stent across different constructs (state vs. trait achievement boredom), methodologies (qualitative, cross-sectional, and predicti ve), and cultural co ntexts. The research is discussed with regard to the underdeveloped literature on achievement emotions.