Learning and Individual Differences 32 (2014) 278–286

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Learning and Individual Differences

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate / l ind i f

Predictors of adolescents' academic motivation: Personality, self-efficacyand adolescents' characteristics

Sarah P. McGeown a,⁎, Dave Putwain b, Emma Geijer Simpson c, Elizabeth Boffey c,Jessica Markham c, Adrienne Vince c

a School of Education, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 8AQ, United Kingdomb School of Education, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, Lancashire L39 4QP, United Kingdomc Department of Psychology, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, United Kingdom

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 131 651 6121.E-mail address: S.McGeown@ed.ac.uk (S.P. McGeown

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.03.0221041-6080/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 8 August 2013Received in revised form 2 December 2013Accepted 24 March 2014

Keywords:Academic motivationPersonalitySelf-efficacyAdolescents

This study examined the factors predicting intrinsic and extrinsic academic motivation among secondary schoolstudents. In total, 455 students completed questionnairesmeasuring intrinsic and extrinsic academicmotivation,Big Five personality traits and self-efficacy. In addition, demographic information (sex, age and socioeconomicstatus) was obtained. Overall, self-efficacy and personality (specifically conscientiousness) predicted significantvariance in intrinsic motivation, while only self-efficacy predicted significant variance in extrinsic motivation;self-efficacy and personality predicted more variance in intrinsic than extrinsic motivation. Demographicvariables (sex, age and SES) were not significant predictors of academic motivation. Implications for raisingacademic motivation among secondary school aged students are discussed.

© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Researchers interested in the factors that influence student'sachievement and academic success are more commonly studying theconcept of motivation, due to increased evidence that motivationplays an important role in attainment (Gilman & Anderman, 2006;Gottfried, 1985, 1990; Lin, McKeachie, & Kim, 2003; McDermott,Mordell, & Stoltzfus, 2001). Indeed, even after accounting for cognitiveabilities or intelligence, motivation has been shown to predict variancein different areas of educational attainment (Logan, Medford, & Hughes,2011; Spinath, Freudenthaler, & Neubauer, 2010; Steinmayr & Spinath,2009; Taboada, Tonks, Wigfield, & Guthrie, 2009), highlighting a needto understand more about motivation within an educational context.

Academic motivation is thought to decline throughout childhoodand into adolescence, although developmental declines are greater forsome subject areas (Gottfried, Fleming, & Gottfried, 2001). Indeed,developmental declines in academic intrinsic motivation (Lepper,Henderlong Corpus, & Iyengar, 2005; Otis, Grouzet, & Pelletier, 2005)have led to heightened concern about lack of academic motivationamong adolescents (Anderman & Maehr, 1994). This is at a time whenadolescents are required to work toward assessments that heavily

).

influence their opportunities for further study or employment.Therefore research focused on understanding the factors that influenceor enhance (Lee, McInerney, Liem, & Ortiga, 2010) adolescents'academic motivation is arguably crucial.

1.1. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

Research investigating academic motivation often differentiatesbetween intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Covington & Mueller,2001; Lepper et al., 2005; Otis et al., 2005; Ryan & Deci, 2000), referringto the different loci of causality with regard to engagement in learning.Academic intrinsic motivation refers to engaging in academic activitiesfor their own sake, for example, to engage in learning due to interestor curiosity, or a desire to develop a greater understanding about atopic. However extrinsic motivation refers to engaging in learning dueto external factors, such as to gain a reward or recognition. Althoughpast research has suggested that these two aspects of motivationrepresent opposites on the same continuum (Harter, 1981), morerecently it has been proposed that intrinsic and extrinsic motivationare better understood as separate facets that should be distinguished,as students can be both intrinsically and extrinsically motivated(Covington & Mueller, 2001; Lepper et al., 2005).

In general, intrinsic motivation is typically correlated with academicsuccess (Lepper et al., 2005; Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2005;Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Sheldon, & Deci, 2004); however extrinsicmotivation is often inversely related with academic attainment (Lepperet al., 2005; Ratelle, Guay, Vallerand, Larose, & Senécal, 2007) as it is

279S.P. McGeown et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 32 (2014) 278–286

generally associated with shallow cognitive engagement in learning(Walker, Greene, & Mansell, 2006). Results from a large meta-analysissuggest that extrinsic motivators (i.e., tangible rewards) undermineintrinsic motivation (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999). However, therelationship between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is arguablymore complex; a moderate level of extrinsic motivation may notnecessarily be detrimental to student's achievement, if coupled withhigh levels of intrinsic motivation (Lin et al., 2003).

1.2. Personality

Personality refers to a set of underlying traits that determine how anindividual typically behaves, thinks and feels. There are several differentconceptualisations of personality; however one of themostwidely usedis the ‘Big Five’ framework (Costa & McCrae, 1992). This conceptualisa-tion uses five factors to explain individual differences in personality.These factors are agreeableness, extraversion, emotional regulation(often termed neuroticism), openness to experiences and conscien-tiousness. A substantial body of research has examined the relationshipbetween personality characteristics and academic attainment (Bratko,Chammorro-Premuzic, & Saks, 2006; Busato, Prins, Elshout, & Hamaker,2000; Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003, 2008; Hair & Graziano,2003; Kappe & Van der Flier, 2010; Kaufman, Agars, & Lopez-Wagner,2008; Komarraju, Karau, & Schmeck, 2009; Laidra, Pullmann, & Allik,2007; Noftle & Robins, 2007; Richardson & Abraham, 2009; Rosander,Bäckstrom, & Sternberg, 2011). Some of this research has beensummarised in a recent meta-analysis which showed thatconscientiousness was consistently most closely related to academicattainment, followed by openness to experiences and agreeableness;emotional stability (neuroticism) and extraversion were often weaklyor unrelated to academic performance (Poropat, 2009).

Interestingly, Poropat (2009) illustrated that the relationshipbetween personality and academic performance was not due to sharedlinks with intelligence. Rather it has been suggested that personalitymay be related to academic attainment because of positive traits thatnaturally promote academic learning (Medford & McGeown, 2012;Poropat, 2009). Indeed, there is some evidence to suggest that self-efficacy and academic motivation mediate the relationship betweenpersonality and attainment (De Feyter, Caers, Vigna, & Berings, 2012).Therefore, personality may predict other factors commonly associatedwith academic performance, for example motivation.

Compared to research examining the relationship between person-ality and attainment, research investigating the relationship betweenpersonality and motivation is more limited, and is almost exclusivelyfocused on college or university students (Batey, Booth, Furnham, &Lipman, 2011; Bipp, Steinmayr, & Spinath, 2008; Clark & Schroth,2010; De Feyter et al., 2012; Hart, Stasson, Mahoney, & Story, 2007;Judge & Ilies, 2002; Komarraju & Karau, 2005; Komarraju et al., 2009;Richardson & Abraham, 2009). These studies have quite consistently il-lustrated a relatively robust relationship between students' personalitycharacteristics and their academic motivation. For example, Komarrajuand Karau (2005) found that college student's openness to experiencesand conscientiousness were positively associated with positive aspectsof academic motivation (e.g., thinking, persisting, achieving) andnegatively associated with negative aspects of academic motivation(e.g., disliking, discouraging). More recently, Komarraju et al. (2009)found that college student's openness to experiences and conscientious-ness emerged as the strongest predictors of intrinsic motivation, whileconscientiousness (and to a lesser extent neuroticism and extraversion)emerged as significant predictors of extrinsic motivation. Clark andSchroth (2010) analysed college student's academic motivation andpersonality further and found that different dimensions of intrinsicmotivation (e.g., accomplishment, stimulation) were predicted by dif-ferent personality traits. On the other hand, the personality traitspredicting different aspects of extrinsic motivation were more similar.

Combined, these studies suggest that the relationship between per-sonality and motivation differs for intrinsic and extrinsic motivation,and for different dimensions of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. How-ever, the vast majority of this research has not been carried outwithin asecondary school setting. Secondary school students differ from univer-sity or college students in a number of ways; not only in age, but poten-tially in their level of academic motivation. Students at college oruniversity have opted to continue in further education and thereforemay be more academically motivated than secondary school pupilsenrolled in compulsory education. In addition, university or college stu-dents are typically studying an area that they have chosen to specialisein, and therefore their academic motivation may be higher than thoserequired to study a number of compulsory academic subjects. As it isin secondary schools in which low academic motivation is of most con-cern (Anderman & Maehr, 1994), a better understanding of the factorsthat predict motivation in this age group is important. However, in ad-dition to personality, there are other factorswhichmay predict academ-ic motivation in this age group which could be considered.

1.3. Self-efficacy

Self-efficacy refers to beliefs or judgments that people have abouttheir own ability to perform well in a variety of tasks or situations, butparticularly in novel or difficult tasks, and is a concept that is closelytied to motivation (Schunk, 1991). Indeed, research illustrates a closerelationship between self-efficacy and motivation; particularly intrinsicmotivation (Boggiano, Main, & Katz, 1988;Walker et al., 2006), perhapsbecause self-belief is generally associated with an increased willingnessor drive to engage in behaviours associated with high self-belief(Pajares, 1996). It is suggested that children who have higher per-ceptions of their competence or abilities have a greater preference toengage in challenging learning activities in particular (Boggiano et al.,1988). In addition to its relationship with motivation, researchsuggests a significant influence of self-efficacy on academic attainment(Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinez-Pons, 1992) and meaningful cogni-tive engagement (Walker et al., 2006). Indeed, in a recent studywith ad-olescents, Caprara, Vecchione, Alessandri, Gerbino, and Barbaranelli(2011) found that both academic self-efficacy and personality traits in-dividually contributed significantly to academic achievement through-out school.

Furthermore, in a series of large scale studies with secondary schoolpupils, Trautwein, Ludtke, Roberts, Schnyder, and Niggli (2009) illus-trated that competency beliefs (similar to self-efficacy) and conscien-tiousness were independent predictors of secondary school pupilsacademic effort and achievement. However, there is generally moreresearch examining the relationship between self-efficacy and attain-ment (e.g., Caprara et al., 2011; Trautwein et al., 2009) than motivation(Boggiano et al., 1988). Nevertheless, student' self-efficacy is likely toinfluence their motivation, but may be a better predictor of someaspects ofmotivation than others. For example, as self-efficacy is associ-atedwith feelings of confidence in ability, it may bemore closely relatedto a desire to engage in challenging tasks rather than a general interestor curiosity to learn more. In the present study, general self-efficacyrather than academic self-efficacywas used to provide a fair comparisonwith personality characteristics (which are also general).

1.4. Demographic variables

Finally demographic variables, namely sex, age and socio-economicstatus may also predict students' academic motivation. There is someresearch to suggest sex differences in academic motivation (Martin &Marsh, 2005; Meece, Glienke, & Burg, 2006), however these differencesare often narrow or not statistically or educationally significant (Lepperet al., 2005). In addition, age related declines in academicmotivation arecommonly reported (Lepper et al., 2005; Otis et al., 2005; SeeshingYeung & McInerney, 2005). There is a lack of research investigating

280 S.P. McGeown et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 32 (2014) 278–286

the relationship between academic motivation and socio-economicstatus (SES), though a meta-analysis examining the relationshipbetween SES and academic achievement suggests these constructs arerelated (Sirin, 2005).

1.5. Aims and hypotheses

The present study was designed to investigate the extent to whichdemographic variables, self-efficacy and personality predicted adoles-cents' academic intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In addition, theextent towhich self-efficacy and personality predicted different dimen-sions of intrinsic (e.g., desire for challenge) and extrinsic (e.g., desire toplease teacher) academic motivation was examined, to identify ways topotentially enhance academic motivation. Based on past literature, itwas predicted that age, self-efficacy, conscientiousness and opennessto experiences would predict individual differences in intrinsic motiva-tion, while conscientiousness would predict variance in extrinsic moti-vation. Due to a lack of literature examining predictors of intrinsic andextrinsic motivation at the dimensional level (e.g., challenge, curiosity),no other predictions had been made prior to carrying out the analyses.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

In total, 455 secondary school students (188 males, 264 female)aged 12 to 16 (Mage= 14 years and 3 months, 1.16 SD) from four sec-ondary schools in England participated. Head teachers and studentsprovided consent prior to participation. Those students who did notwish to participate, completed school work (less than 5% chose not toparticipate). Homepostcodeswere obtained for 369 students; thereforeSES analysis is based on a sub-sample. Postcodes were converted into ameasure of relative deprivation using Office for National Statisticswebsite (Office for National Statistics: Neighbourhood Statistics, 2012)which sums relative deprivation according to seven scales; income,employment, health, education, barriers to housing and services,crime and living environment, across the 32,482 neighbourhoods inEngland. Values from 1 to 32,482 were converted into 10% bands (i.e.,band 1 represented bottom 10% of addresses with the highest level ofsocial deprivation). Students were predominately from average SESbackgrounds: low SES (Band 1–3; 18.5%), average SES (Band 4–7;67.8%) and high SES (Band 8–10; 13.7%). Few statistically significant dif-ferences were found between students who provided home postcodesand those who did not; those who did reported greater conscientious-ness, p b .05, ηp

2 = .01, independent mastery, p b .05, ηp2 = .01 and

self-efficacy, p b .05 ηp2 = .02; however these differences were very

small.

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Five Factor Personality Inventory — Children (FFPI-C) (McGhee,Ehrler, & Buckhalt, 2007)

This 75 item standardised questionnaire is designed to assess the ‘BigFive’ personality traits (conscientiousness, agreeableness, openness toexperiences, extraversion and emotional regulation) in individuals agednine to nineteen. Conscientiousness includes traits such as competence,order, dutifulness, achievement striving, self-discipline and deliberation.Agreeableness includes traits such as trustworthiness, straightforward-ness, altruism, compliance, modesty and tendermindedness. Opennessto experiences includes traits such as imagination, interest in aesthetics,intellectual curiosity and openness to feelings, actions, and other values.Extraversion includes traits such as warmth, gregariousness, assertive-ness, activity, excitement seeking and optimism. Finally, emotional regu-lation (neuroticism) refers to traits such as anxiety, feeling of anger orhostility, depression, self-consciousness, impulsiveness and vulnerability(McGhee et al., 2007). Fifteen items measure each trait using a 5-point

Likert scale. The FFPI-C is considered a reliable and valid measure; in-formation regarding the reliability and validity can be found in theexaminer's manual (McGhee et al., 2007). Using the current data set,Cronbach's alpha values for conscientiousness (α= .69), agreeableness,(α = .68), openness to experiences (α = .58), extraversion (α = .65)and emotional regulation (α = .82) demonstrated moderate internalconsistency; almost all valueswere lower than .70. Using standardisationnorms, raw scores were converted to t scores to be used in the analysis.

2.2.2. Academic Motivation Questionnaire (Lepper et al., 2005)This 33 item questionnaire measures levels of intrinsic (preference

for challenge, curiosity, independent mastery) and extrinsic (easywork, please the teacher, dependence on teacher) motivation. For theintrinsic dimensions, preference for challenge reflects a desire to engagein challenging tasks, curiosity reflects a desire to engage in activities outof interest or curiosity, and independent mastery reflects a desire toindependently master academic school work. For the extrinsic dimen-sions, easy work reflects a desire to engage in easywork rather than dif-ficult or challenging work, please the teacher refers to being motivatedto engage in academic activities out of a sole desire to please the teacherand dependence on the teacher reflects a preference to rely on theteacher for academic guidance and direction. Student's were requiredto respond to each item on the Likert scale which ranged from 1 to 5:1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree,4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree. The questionnaire was taken directlyfrom Lepper et al. (2005), however reliability analysis was carried outusing the data from this sample. Cronbach's alpha values were asfollows: preference for challenge (6 items, α = .81), curiosity (6items, α = .73), independent mastery (5 items α = .63), easy work(6 items, α = .72), please the teacher (4 items, α = .60) and depen-dence on teacher (5 items α = .70).

2.2.3. General Self-Efficacy Scale (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995)This measure includes 10 statements designed to evaluate levels of

general self-efficacy, that is, the belief that one can perform novel ordifficult tasks, or cope with adversity. Students used a four point likertscale; 1 = not at all true, 2 = hardly true, 3 = moderately true, 4 =exactly true, to respond to each item. This questionnaire was takendirectly from Schwarzer and Jerusalem (1995), however reliabilityanalysis was carried out and Cronbach's alpha value was acceptable(10 items, α = .72).

2.3. Procedure

Students were given information about the tasks and only thosestudents who gave consent participated. Students were given instruc-tions on how to complete the questionnaires and were given supportif necessary. Questionnaires were completed quietly in class, with notime restrictions. On average, students took approximately one hourto complete all assessments. Following this, students were thanked fortheir time.

3. Results

Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. Correlations arepresented in Table 2 and were conducted to examine the strength ofrelationship between academic motivation and all other measuredvariables.

Self-efficacy and all personality traits (with the exception of extra-version) were positively and significantly associated with academic in-trinsic motivation. On the other hand, conscientiousness, self-efficacyand agreeableness were negatively, and significantly, correlated withacademic extrinsic motivation, although these associations were muchweaker (see Table 2). Demographic variables were unrelated to allmeasured variables.

Table 1Descriptive statistics for demographic variables, academic motivation, self-efficacy andpersonality.

M SD Skewness Kurtosis

Age 14.32 1.15 −.07 −.61Socio economic status 5.86 2.35 −1.04 −.06Intrinsic motivation 57.15 9.12 −.19 .25Extrinsic motivation 47.22 7.64 −.19 −.06Self-efficacy 29.00 4.54 .17 3.40Conscientiousness 49.97 8.83 .51 2.87Agreeableness 47.58 7.48 −.11 .48Openness to experiences 51.80 7.77 .14 −.03Emotional regulation 49.70 8.46 −.27 .11Extraversion 44.99 7.36 −.19 .63

281S.P. McGeown et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 32 (2014) 278–286

Following this, hierarchical multiple regression analyses werecarried out to examine the factors predicting intrinsic and extrinsicacademic motivation. Two regression models are illustrated inTables 3 (intrinsic motivation) and 4 (extrinsic motivation). In Models1 and 3, demographic variables are entered first into the regressionmodel, followed by self-efficacy and finally personality. In Models 2and 4, only personality was entered to examine specifically the extentto which these five personality characteristics would predict academicmotivation in adolescents (to provide a comparison with the college/university samples in Komarraju and Karau (2005) and Komarrajuet al. (2009)). Collinearity statistics were run and for Models 1 and 3,the variance inflation factor (VIF) varied between 1.02 and 1.36(average VIF = 1.19) and tolerance statistics varied between .735 and.983. ForModels 2 and 4, the VIF varied between 1.13 and 1.32 (averageVIF = 1.23) and tolerance statistics varied between .753 and .879,therefore multicollinearity was not a concern.

Models 1 and 3 (see Tables 3 and 4) illustrate that demographic var-iables predict no variance in intrinsic or extrinsic academic motivation.Self-efficacy, however, was a significant predictor of both intrinsic andextrinsic motivation; positively predicting intrinsic motivation andinversely predicting extrinsic motivation. After accounting for demo-graphic variables and self-efficacy, of the five personality traits, onlyconscientiousness significantly predicted additional variance in intrinsicmotivation. When only personality traits were entered as predictors(Models 2 and 4), both conscientiousness and openness to experiencessignificantly predicted intrinsic motivation, while only conscientious-ness significantly predicted extrinsic motivation (inversely related).Overall, personality traits predicted 20.6% of the variance in intrinsicmotivation but only 5.1% in extrinsic motivation.

Collinearity statistics were run and for the regression models inTables 5 and 6, the variance inflation factor (VIF) varied between 1.15and 1.36 (average VIF = 1.26) and tolerance statistics varied between.732 and .868. Final β values are presented in the final column inTables 5 and 6 (i.e., when all predictors are included, regardless oforder of entry). Demographic variables were not included as they

Table 2Correlations between demographic variables, academic motivation, self-efficacy and personalit

1 2 3 4

1. Age –

2. Socio economic status .00 –

3. Self-efficacy −.02 −.07 –

4. Intrinsic motivation −.01 −.08 .43⁎⁎ –

5. Extrinsic motivation .05 −.03 −.11⁎ −.23⁎⁎

6. Conscientiousness −.02 −.02 .30⁎⁎ .40⁎⁎

7. Agreeableness −.05 .13 −.05 .13⁎⁎

8. Open to experiences −.00 −.01 .21⁎⁎ .30⁎⁎

9. Emotional regulation .00 −.00 .33⁎⁎ .19⁎⁎

10. Extraversion .02 .03 .22⁎⁎ −.00

Note.⁎ p ≤ .05.⁎⁎ p ≤ .01.

previously failed to predict variance. Instead, comparisons weredrawn between the predictive ability of self-efficacy and personality.In Models 5 and 7, self-efficacy was entered at Step 1, followed bypersonality at Step 2. In Models 6 and 8, personality was entered atStep 1, followed by self-efficacy at Step 2.

In Table 5, dimensions of intrinsic motivation were examined indi-vidually. Self-efficacy and personality predicted variance in challengewhen entered at Step 1 or 2; though both were weaker predictorswhen entered at Step 2 and only self-efficacy and conscientiousnesswere significant predictors. Similarly, self-efficacy and personalitypredicted variance in curiosity when entered at Step 1 or 2; thoughagain were weaker predictors when entered at Step 2. Self-efficacy,conscientiousness, agreeableness and openness to experiences wereall significant predictors of curiosity. Finally, self-efficacy predictedsignificant variance in independent mastery when entered at Step 1 or2; however personality only predicted variance in independentmasteryat Step 1. Only self-efficacy was a significant predictor of independentmastery.

Overall, all variables were able to predict a larger proportion of thevariance in challenge (28%) and curiosity (30.1%) than independentmastery (8.3%). When all variables were entered, self-efficacy was themost important single predictor of all dimensions of intrinsic motiva-tion; however (aggregate) personality traits predicted more variancein curiosity than self-efficacy.

Self-efficacy and personality traits were generally poor predictors ofthe different dimensions of extrinsic motivation compared to intrinsicmotivation (see Table 6). Self-efficacy predicted easy work (but onlywhen entered at Step 1); whereas personality predicted easy work atStep 1 or 2. In particular, conscientiousness was a significant predictorof easy work (inversely related). Personality predicted no variance inthe other dimensions of extrinsic motivation; however self-efficacyinversely predicted variance in dependence on teacher (when enteredbefore or after personality).

4. Discussion

In the present study, the extent to which demographic variables,self-efficacy and personality predicted intrinsic and extrinsic academicmotivation (and dimensions of motivation) among secondary schoolstudents was examined. Overall, intrinsic and extrinsic academic moti-vation were best predicted by self-efficacy, followed by conscientious-ness; higher levels of these traits were associated with increasedintrinsic motivation and decreased extrinsic motivation.

While demographic variables did not explain variance in intrinsicacademic motivation, self-efficacy and personality (in particularconscientiousness) did. Regression analyses including personality traitsonly were carried out, to allow comparisons to be drawn with previousstudies. Indeed, consistent with previous research (Komarraju et al.,2009) both conscientiousness and openness to experiences predicted

y.

5 6 7 8 9

–

−.19⁎⁎ –

−.10⁎ .37⁎⁎ –

−.08 .27⁎⁎ .24⁎⁎ –

−.08 .24⁎⁎ .13⁎⁎ .22⁎⁎ –

.06 −.14⁎⁎ −.30⁎⁎ .07 .26⁎⁎

Table 3Hierarchical multiple regression analyses predicting intrinsic academic motivation from demographical variables, self-efficacy and personality (standardised regression weights reportedfrom the final model).

Model 1 (M1) Model 2 (M2)

ΔR2 ΔF (df) Final β ΔR2 ΔF (df) Final β

Step 1 (M1) .056 2.36 (3,360)Sex −.007Age −.109SES −.099

Step 2 (M2) .113 16.22 (1,359)⁎⁎

Self-efficacy .271⁎⁎

Step 3 (M1), 1 (M2) .099 3.07 (5,354)⁎ .206 20.28 (5,392)⁎⁎

Conscientiousness .251⁎⁎ .340⁎⁎

Agreeableness −.149 −.053Openness to experience .113 .208⁎⁎

Emotional regulation .089 .081Extraversion −.152 −.004

Note⁎ p ≤ .05.⁎⁎ p ≤ .01.

282 S.P. McGeown et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 32 (2014) 278–286

significant variance in academic intrinsic motivation; however consci-entiousness was the strongest predictor. Conscientious students aretypically more achievement-oriented and self-disciplined academically,therefore are more likely to be self-motivated. Indeed, conscientious-ness includes traits such as competence (to be sensible and effective),order (to be neat and organized), dutifulness (to feel a sense of obliga-tion), achievement striving (to be hard working and goal striving),self-discipline (to carry out tasks to completion) and deliberation (tobe careful and cautious) (McGhee et al., 2007), all of which arguablyalign with being academically orientated. Indeed, the present studysuggests that the contribution of most other personality traits toadolescent's global academic intrinsic motivation is almost negligiblewhen conscientiousness is included. In addition however, students whohad higher levels of openness to experiencesweremore intrinsicallymo-tivated. Those scoring higher on this trait are more intellectually curious,and therefore may have a greater desire to learn. While Komarraju et al.(2009) carried out their research studywith college students; the presentstudy was carried out with secondary school students and used a differ-ent scale to measure academic intrinsic motivation. Therefore this addsconvincing evidence to suggest that personality (in particular conscien-tiousness) is a useful predictor of intrinsicmotivation; even after account-ing for demographic variables and self-efficacy.

A comparison of the extent to which self-efficacy and personalitypredicted different dimensions of intrinsic motivation was also carriedout. Self-efficacy was a more important predictor of challenge andindependent mastery than personality; whereas personality traits(when aggregated) explainedmore variance in curiosity. Research sug-

Table 4Hierarchical multiple regression analyses predicting extrinsic academicmotivation from demogfrom the final model).

Model 3 (M3)

ΔR2 ΔF (df)

Step 1 (M3) .005 .22 (3,360)SexAgeSES

Step 2 (M3) .080 10.40 (1,359)⁎⁎

Self-efficacyStep 3 (M3), 1 (M4) .028 .72 (5,354)ConscientiousnessAgreeablenessOpenness to experienceEmotional regulationExtraversion

Note.⁎ p ≤ .05.⁎⁎ p ≤ .01.

gests that those high in self-belief or self-efficacy have a greater prefer-ence to engage in challenging tasks (Boggiano et al., 1988). In addition,students with high levels of self-belief may be more motivated to mas-ter school work independently rather than with the assistance of ateacher. With regard to the dimension of curiosity, personality (consci-entiousness, openness to experiences and agreeableness) predicted var-iance. Indeed there is likely some conceptual overlap between opennessto experiences and the curiosity sub facet of intrinsicmotivation, as bothrelate to intellectual curiosity and the desire for novelty. To conclude,comparisons between self-efficacy and personality suggest that theymap more closely onto different aspects of motivation; the former tochallenge and independent mastery and the latter to curiosity.

For extrinsic motivation, demographic variables predicted no vari-ance, nor did personality (after accounting for self-efficacy); howeverself-efficacy inversely predicted variance in this global construct.When only personality traits were entered as predictors (to allow com-parisons with past research), consistent with the literature (Komarrajuet al., 2009), conscientiousness predicted significant variance, but wasthe only personality characteristic to predict variance. When eachdimension of extrinsicmotivationwas examined individually, conscien-tiousness only predicted variance in the construct of easy work. As atrait such as achievement striving is inherent to conscientiousness, itis appropriate that student's scoring high on this trait would score lowon a desire to engage in easy tasks. Self-efficacy, on the other hand,inversely predicted easy work and dependence on teacher; thosestudents who feel confident in their ability to deal with new or noveltasks are less likely to desire easy work or depend on their teacher.

raphical variables, self-efficacy and personality (standardised regression weights reported

Model 4 (M4)

Final β ΔR2 ΔF (df) Final β

.029

.003−.071

−.291⁎⁎

.051 4.30 (5, 399)⁎⁎

−.081 −.180⁎⁎

−.012 −.015.132 −.036⁎

.077 −.043−.072 .056

Table 5Hierarchical multiple regression analyses predicting dimensions of intrinsic academic motivation with self-efficacy (Model 5) or personality (Model 6) entered at first step (standardisedregression weights reported from the final model).

Model 5 (M5) Model 6 (M5)

ΔR2 ΔF (df) ΔR2 ΔF (df) Final β

ChallengeStep 1 (M5), Step 2 (M6) .180 87.15 (1,437)⁎⁎ .073 39.63 (1,432)⁎⁎

Self-efficacy .306⁎⁎

Step 2 (M5), Step 1 (M6) .100 10.86 (5,432)⁎⁎ .207 20.51 (5,433)⁎⁎

Conscientiousness .259⁎⁎

Agreeableness −.021Openness to experience .127Emotional regulation .072Extraversion −.025

CuriosityStep 1 (M5), Step 2 (M6) .136 62.61 (1,437)⁎⁎ .058 32.35 (1,432)⁎⁎ .272⁎⁎

Self-efficacyStep 2 (M5), Step 1 (M6) .165 18.54 (5,432)⁎⁎ .244 25.34 (5,433)⁎⁎

Conscientiousness .248⁎⁎

Agreeableness .120⁎

Openness to experiences .202⁎⁎

Emotional regulation −.014Extraversion −.014

Independent masteryStep 1 (M5), Step 2 (M6) .063 26.87 (1,437)⁎⁎ .042 17.87 (1,432)⁎⁎

Self-efficacy .231⁎⁎

Step 2 (M5), Step 1 (M6) .020 1.72 (5,432) .042 3.42 (5,433)⁎⁎

Conscientiousness .075Agreeableness −.038Openness to experiences .100Emotional regulation −.023Extraversion −.067

Note.⁎ p ≤ .05.⁎⁎ p ≤ .01.

Table 6Hierarchical multiple regression analyses predicting dimensions of extrinsic academicmotivation with self-efficacy (Model 7) or personality (Model 8) entered at first step (standardisedregression weights reported from the final model).

Model 7 (M7) Model 8 (M8)

ΔR2 ΔF (df) ΔR2 ΔF (df) Final β

Easy work .018 7.54 (1,437)⁎⁎ .000 .19 (1,432)Step 1 (M7), Step 2 (M8)Self-efficacy −.023

Step 2 (M7), Step 1 (M8) .102 9.18 (5,432)⁎⁎ .120 10.83 (5,433)⁎⁎

Conscientiousness −.253⁎⁎

Agreeableness −.018Openness to experience −.081Emotional regulation −.100Extraversion .041

Please teacherStep 1 (M7), Step 2 (M8) .001 .202 (1,437) .000 .098 (1,432)Self-efficacy −.018

Step 2 (M7), Step 1 (M8) .013 1.01 (5,432) .013 1.04 (5,433)Conscientiousness −.099Agreeableness .018Openness to experiences −.012Emotional regulation .082Extraversion .006

Depend on teacherStep 1 (M7), Step 2 (M8) .009 4.01 (1,437)⁎ .015 5.85 (1,432)⁎

Self-efficacy −.137⁎

Step 2 (M7), Step 1 (M8) .012 .98 (5,432) .007 .52 (5,433)Conscientiousness .044Agreeableness −.051Openness to experiences .032Emotional regulation .001Extraversion .090

Note.⁎ p ≤ .05.⁎⁎ p ≤ .01.

283S.P. McGeown et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 32 (2014) 278–286

284 S.P. McGeown et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 32 (2014) 278–286

Personality traits and self-efficacywere able to predict amuch largerportion of the variance in intrinsic motivation compared to extrinsicmotivation. Therefore it is still largely unclear about the characteristicsand factors that explain extrinsic motivation in secondary school agedpupils. However, it could be argued that predicting intrinsic motivationis more useful, given the stronger relationship between intrinsic moti-vation and attainment.

Although demographic variables (age, sex, socio-economic status)were used as predictors of motivation, these characteristics did notexplain any significant variance in academic motivation. In manyways, this is an encouraging result. While there is research to suggestsex differences, to some extent, in academic motivation among adoles-cents (Martin & Marsh, 2005) and age related changes (Lepper et al.,2005; Otis et al., 2005; Seeshing Yeung & McInerney, 2005), thepresent study illustrates that these differences are not necessarilylarge; rather it appears to be individual differences in self-efficacy andpersonality that are better predictors of individual differences inacademic motivation.

As mentioned earlier, an overwhelming majority of studies in thisarea have been carried out with college or university students. There-fore it is noteworthy that there were similarities between previousstudies and the current research study in terms of the personality traitspredicting motivation (i.e., Komarraju & Karau, 2005; Komarraju et al.,2009).

4.1. Implications for education

It is in secondary schools where low academic motivation is mostprevalent and of most concern (Anderman & Maehr, 1994; Middleton,Kaplan, & Midgley, 2004), therefore implications for those workingin secondary school education will be discussed. The results of thisresearch suggest that to improve academic motivation, there may besome merit in focusing on self-efficacy or personality. To enhance self-efficacy, Margolis and McCabe (2004) suggest that linking new workto recent successes, reinforcing effort and persistence, and helpingstudents create personally important goals may also positively impacton academic motivation. Furthermore, they stress the importance ofensuring students work at an appropriate instructional level tostrengthen their expectations of success rather than failure. Drawingon self-determination theory, Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, and Ryan(1991) further argue that to enhance intrinsic motivation, positivefeedback provided to students is better when accompanied by supportfor autonomy; that is, it is better to praise students for a self-initiatedactivity rather than a teacher-imposed activity. It has been suggestedthat academic self-efficacy is more malleable than personality traits(Caprara et al., 2011) therefore focusing on self-efficacy may be amore effective route towards enhancing academic motivation.

Nevertheless, to encourage the benefits associated with conscien-tiousness, teachers could enhance organisational and instructional sup-ports into their teaching activities which facilitate higher cognitiveengagement with lesson material. This could include strategies such asfavouring depth over breadth of material, using real-live examples topromote students' enthusiasm and interest and designing activities topromote reflective, deep and critical thinking (e.g., Dolezal, Welsh,Pressley, & Vincent, 2003;Wang & Holcombe, 2010). To increase open-ness to experiences, teachers could encourage adolescents to spendtime learning about something new, or share areas of their own exper-tise with each other. Providing greater choice of activities and respectfor students' different perspectives and interests may also supportopenness to experiences (e.g., Roehrig & Christesen, 2010; Roehriget al., 2008). However, teachers should have realistic expectationsabout the extent to which personality traits can be encouraged for thepurposes of enhancing academic motivation, as research suggests thatpersonality traits are relatively stable (Roberts & Del Vecchio, 2000).

Therefore, as an alternative, teachers could create learning environ-ments that align with student's personality characteristics. Komarraju

and Karau (2005) suggest that matching educational environmentsto student's personality characteristics may lead to improvements inacademic motivation. Similarly, Eysenck (1996) proposed that childrenlearn better with teaching methods that suit their personality traits.More recently, Chamorro-Premuzic, Furnham, and Lewis (2007) alsofound that different personality traits (and approaches to learning)predicted a preference for difference methods of learning.

4.2. Limitations

There are a few limitations that should be borne in mind whenconsidering the results of this study. Firstly, it is not possible to drawconclusions regarding causality due to the correlational nature of thestudy. Secondly, self-report scales were used to measure academicmotivation, self-efficacy and personality, which require a certain levelof self-awareness, reflection and honesty when answering. Neverthe-less, research suggests that adolescents are able to accurately report(and differentiate) between the five personality traits at this age,although this ability does improve with age (Allik, Laidra, Realo, &Pullman, 2004). In addition, reliability analysis of the questionnairesillustrated that Cronbach's alpha values were lower than is typically ac-ceptable; therefore conclusions should bemade with caution. Althoughan item deletion approachwas tested, this did not significantly improvethe Cronbach's alpha values; therefore all items were retained. Finally,the present study affords an opportunity to understand the extent towhich demographic variables, self-efficacy and personality predictadolescents' academic motivation. However, the analyses arguablycannot answer questions concerning ‘why’ some traits are strongerpredictors than others. By integrating past theory and research with fu-ture mixed method studies, it may be possible to answer this question.

4.3. Conclusions

Self-efficacy and conscientiousness were the strongest and mostconsistent predictors of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation amongsecondary school pupils; high levels of these traits were associatedwith increased intrinsic motivation and decreased extrinsic motivation.Overall, self-efficacy and personality were able to account for a muchlarger portion of the variance in intrinsic motivation compared toextrinsic motivation. In addition, self-efficacy and personality charac-teristics mappedmore closely on to different dimensions of motivation.It is suggested that teachers working with secondary school pupilsconsider the influence of these traits as a possible route towardsenhancing academic motivation.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank all of the students who participatedin this study.

References

Allik, J., Laidra, K., Realo, A., & Pullman, H. (2004). Personality development from 12 to18 years of age: Changes in mean levels and structure of traits. European Journal ofPersonality, 18, 445–462. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.524.

Anderman, E. M., & Maehr, M. L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middlegrades. Review of Educational Research, 64, 287–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543064002287.

Batey, M., Booth, T., Furnham, A., & Lipman, H. (2011). The relationship between person-ality and motivation — Is there a general factor of motivation? Individual DifferencesResearch, 9, 115–125.

Bipp, T., Steinmayr, R., & Spinath, B. (2008). Personality and achievement motivation: Re-lationship among Big Five domain and facet scales, achievement goals, and intelli-gence. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1454–1464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.001.

Boggiano, A. L., Main, D. S., & Katz, P. A. (1988). Children's preference for challenge: Therole of perceived competency and control. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 54, 134–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.1.134.

Bratko, D., Chammorro-Premuzic, T., & Saks, Z. (2006). Personality and school perfor-mance: Incremental validity of self- and peer-ratings over intelligence.

285S.P. McGeown et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 32 (2014) 278–286

Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 131–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.12.015.

Busato, V. V., Prins, F. J., Elshout, J. J., & Hamaker, C. (2000). Intellectual ability, learningstyle, personality, achievement motivation and academic success of psychology stu-dents in higher education. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 1057–1068.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00253-6.

Caprara, G. V., Vecchione, M., Alessandri, G., Gerbino, M., & Barbaranelli, C. (2011). Thecontribution of personality traits and self-efficacy beliefs to academic achievement:A longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 78–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/2044-8279.002004.

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality predicts academic perfor-mance: Evidence from two longitudinal samples. Journal of Research in Personality,37, 319–338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00578-0.

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2008). Personality, intelligence and approaches tolearning as predictors of academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences,44, 1596–1603. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.003.

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A., & Lewis, M. (2007). Personality and approaches tolearning predict preference for different teaching methods. Learning and IndividualDifferences, 17, 241–250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2006.12.001.

Clark, M. H., & Schroth, C. A. (2010). Examining relationships between academic motiva-tion and personality among college students. Learning and Individual Differences, 20,19–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.10.002.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) andNEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological AssessmentResources.

Covington, M. V., & Mueller, J. J. (2001). Intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation: An ap-proach/avoidance reformulation. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 157–176.http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1009009219144.

De Feyter, T., Caers, R., Vigna, C., & Berings, D. (2012). Unraveling the impact of the BigFive personality traits on academic performance: The moderating and mediating ef-fects of self-efficacy and academic motivation. Learning and Individual Differences.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.03.013.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments ex-amining the effects of extrinsic rewards. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627–668. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627.

Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education:The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26, 325–346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2603&4_6.

Dolezal, S. E., Welsh, L. M., Pressley, M., & Vincent, M. M. (2003). How nine third-gradeteachers motivate student academic engagement. The Elementary School Journal,103(3), 239–267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/499725.

Eysenck, H. J. (1996). Personality and the experimental study of education. European Jour-nal of Personality, 10, 427–439.

Gilman, R., & Anderman, E. M. (2006). The relationship between relative levels of motiva-tion and intrapersonal, interpersonal, and academic functioning among older adoles-cents. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 375–391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.03.004.

Gottfried, A. E. (1985). Academic intrinsic motivation in elementary and junior highschool students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 631–645. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.77.6.631.

Gottfried, A. E. (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school chil-dren. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 525–538. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.82.3.525.

Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfried, A. W. (2001). Continuity of academic intrinsicmotivation from childhood through late adolescence: A longitudinal study. Journalof Educational Psychology, 93, 3–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.93.1.3.

Hair, E. C., & Graziano, W. G. (2003). Self-esteem, personality and achievement in highschool: A prospective longitudinal study in Texas. Journal of Personality, 71,971–994. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.7106004.

Hart, J. W., Stasson, M. F., Mahoney, J. M., & Story, P. (2007). The big five personality traitsand achievement motivation: Exploring the relationship between personality and atwo factor model of motivation. Individual Differences Research, 5, 267–274.

Harter, S. (1981). A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in theclassroom: Motivational and informational components. Developmental Psychology,17, 300–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.17.3.300.

Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality and performance motivation: Ameta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 797–807. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.4.797.

Kappe, F. R., & Van der Flier, H. (2010). Using multiple and specific criteria to assess thepredictive validity of the Big Five personality factors on academic achievement.Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 142–145.

Kaufman, J. C., Agars, M. D., & Lopez-Wagner, M. C. (2008). The role of personality andmotivation in predicting early college academic success in non-traditional studentsat a Hispanic-serving institution. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 492–496.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.11.004.

Komarraju, M., & Karau, S. J. (2005). The relationship between the big five personalitytraits and academic motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 557–567.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.02.013.

Komarraju, M., Karau, S. J., & Schmeck, R. R. (2009). Role of the Big Five personality traitsin predicting college students' academic motivation and achievement. Learning andIndividual Differences, 19, 47–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.07.001.

Laidra, K., Pullmann, H., & Allik, J. (2007). Personality and intelligence as predictors of ac-ademic achievement: A cross- sectional study from elementary to secondary school.Personality and Individual Differences. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.08.001.

Lee, J. Q., McInerney, D. M., Liem, G. A. D., & Ortiga, Y. P. (2010). The relationship betweenfuture goals and achievement goal orientations: An intrinsic-extrinsic motivation

perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 264–279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.04.004.

Lepper, M. R., Henderlong Corpus, J., & Iyengar, S. S. (2005). Intrinsic and extrinsic moti-vational orientations in the classroom: Age differences and academic correlates.Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 184–196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.184.

Lin, Y., McKeachie, W. J., & Kim, Y. C. (2003). College student intrinsic and/or extrinsicmo-tivation and learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 13, 251–258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1041-6080(02)00092-4.

Logan, S., Medford, E., & Hughes, N. (2011). The importance of intrinsic motivation forhigh and low ability readers' reading comprehension performance. Learning andIndividual Differences, 21, 124–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.09.011.

Margolis, H., & McCabe, P. P. (2004). Self-efficacy: A key to improving the motivation ofstruggling learners. The Clearing House, 31, 241–249.

Martin, A., &Marsh, H. (2005). Motivating boys andmotivating girls: Does teacher genderreally make a difference? Australian Journal of Education, 49, 320–334.

McDermott, P. A., Mordell, M., & Stoltzfus, J. C. (2001). The organization of student perfor-mance in American schools: Discipline, motivation, verbal, learning, nonverbal learn-ing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 65–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.93.1.65.

McGhee, R. L., Ehrler, D. J., & Buckhalt, J. A. (2007). Five-Factor Personality Inventory— Chil-dren (FFPI-C).

Medford, E., & McGeown, S. P. (2012). The influence of personality characteristics onchildren's intrinsic reading motivation. Learning and Individual Differences, 22,786–791. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.06.002.

Meece, J. L., Glienke, B. B., & Burg, S. (2006). Gender and motivation. Journal of SchoolPsychology, 44, 351–373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.004.

Middleton, M. J., Kaplan, A., & Midgley, C. (2004). The change in middle school students'achievement goals in mathematics over time. Social Psychology of Education, 7,289–311.

Noftle, E. E., & Robins, R. W. (2007). Personality predictors of academic outcomes: Big fivecorrelates of GPA and SAT scores. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93,116–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.116.

Office for National Statistics: Neighbourhood Statistics (2012). Retrieved on the 18th ofApril 2012 from. www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk

Otis, N., Grouzet, F. M. E., & Pelletier, L. G. (2005). Latent motivational change in an aca-demic setting: A 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97,170–183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.170.

Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of EducationalResearch, 66, 543–578. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543066004543.

Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academicperformance. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 322–338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014996.

Ratelle, C. F., Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., Larose, S., & Senécal, C. (2007). Autonomous, con-trolled, and amotivated types of academic motivation: A person-oriented analysis.Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 734–746. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.734.

Richardson, M., & Abraham, C. (2009). Conscientiousness and achievement motivationpredict performance. European Journal of Personality, 23, 589–605. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.732.

Roberts, B. W., & Del Vecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personalitytraits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies.Psychological Bulletin, 126, 3–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.3.

Roehrig, A. D., & Christesen, E. (2010). Development and use of a tool for evaluating teach-er effectiveness in grades K-12. In V. J. Shute, & B. J. Becker (Eds.), Innovative assess-ment for the 21st Century (pp. 207–228). New York, NY: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6530-1_12.

Roehrig, A. D., Guidry, L. O., Bodur, Y., Guan, Q., Guo, Y., & Pop, M. (2008). Guided field ob-servations: Variables related to preservice teachers' knowledge about effective pri-mary reading instruction. Literacy Research and Instruction, 47(2), 76–98.

Rosander, P., Bäckstrom, M., & Sternberg, G. (2011). Personality traits and general intelli-gence as a predictor of academic performance: A structural equation modelling ap-proach. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 590–596. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.04.004.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: Classic definitions andnew directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.

Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26,207–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2603&4_2.

Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S.Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user's portfolio.Causal and control beliefs. (pp. 35–37). Windsor, England: NFER-NELSON.

Seeshing Yeung, A., & McInerney, D. M. (2005). Students' school motivation and aspira-tion over high school years. Educational Psychology, 25, 537–554.

Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic re-view of research. Review of Educational Research, 75, 417–453. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543075003417.

Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2005). Antecedents and outcomes of self-determinationin three life domains: The role of parents' and teachers' autonomy support. Journal ofYouth and Adolescence, 34, 589–604. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-005-8948-y.

Spinath, B., Freudenthaler, H. H., & Neubauer, A. C. (2010). Domain-specific schoolachievement in boys and girls as predicted by intelligence, personality and motiva-tion. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 481–486. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.11.028.

Steinmayr, R., & Spinath, B. (2009). The importance of motivation as a predictor of schoolachievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 80–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.05.004.

286 S.P. McGeown et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 32 (2014) 278–286

Taboada, A., Tonks, S. M., Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2009). Effects of motivational andcognitive variables on reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 22, 85–106.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11145-008-9133-y.

Trautwein, U., Ludtke, O., Roberts, B. W., Schnyder, I., & Niggli, A. (2009). Different forces,same consequence: Conscientiousness and competence beliefs are independent pre-dictors of academic effort and achievement. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 97, 1115–1128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017048.

Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivatinglearning, performance, and persistence: The synergistic role of intrinsic goals and au-tonomy support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 246–260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.246.

Walker, C. O., Greene, B. A., & Mansell, R. A. (2006). Identification with academics, intrin-sic/extrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy as predictors of cognitive engagement.Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2005.06.004.

Wang, M., & Holcombe, R. (2010). Adolescents' perceptions of school environment, en-gagement, and academic achievement in middle school. American Educational Re-search Journal, 47, 633–662. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831209361209.

Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self motivation for academicattainment: The role of self efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educa-tional Research Journal, 29, 663–676. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312029003663.